Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+\[Fwd\:\s+Re\:\s+Equal\s+opportunity\]\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+\[Fwd\:\s+Re\:\s+Equal\s+opportunity\]\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: [Fwd: Re: Equal opportunity] (score: 1): Author: Herb Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>; Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:04:28 -0400; Art, I had a similar problem in reverse but only related to the 160 meter contest when a European whose multiplier I needed called me again the next day. He showed up on the "dupe warning error". Ma; /archives//html/Topband/2010-02/msg00016.html (9,048 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: [Fwd: Re: Equal opportunity] (score: 1): Author: "Chet" <chetmoore@cox.net>; Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:43:00 -0500; Herb and Art have it right. I had several stations tell me I was a dupe this past weekend. When I responded with an NIL (not in log) the guy just called CQ again. For sure he is not in my log and he; /archives//html/Topband/2010-02/msg00027.html (10,118 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: [Fwd: Re: Equal opportunity] (score: 1): Author: Art <k6xt@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:27:52 -0700; Again I say: This has nothing to do with my original post which I invite you to re-read. I regret in the strongest possible terms ever using the word "dupe" in my post. With respect to my post I urge; /archives//html/Topband/2010-02/msg00034.html (12,119 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: [Fwd: Re: Equal opportunity] (score: 1): Author: Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net>; Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:53:58 -0500; There is no penalty for me giving an apparent dupe "another" exchange. No contest sponsor deducts for scattered dupes. If I *don't* give the extra exchange, and I'm not in his log, the disputed qso w; /archives//html/Topband/2010-02/msg00036.html (12,419 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: [Fwd: Re: Equal opportunity] (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:35:51 -0500; Harking back to the message that started all this, I'm not sure there hasn't been a misunderstanding. Let's say hypothetically that it was TX3D that wouldn't make a dupe QSO - in the case of DXpediti; /archives//html/Topband/2010-02/msg00042.html (14,277 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]