Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+\:\s+Re\:\s+JT1CO\s+QSL\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+\:\s+Re\:\s+JT1CO\s+QSL\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: : Re: JT1CO QSL (score: 1): Author: Kevin Schavee <n0cwrham@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:10:36 -0600; "Wouldn't it be nice if we could help topbanders " LOTW means nothing to me. How did our QSO's get so trivial that a a nch on an ARRL server was ok? Real cards! Please. I've had great results with gr; /archives//html/Topband/2009-12/msg00205.html (6,474 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: : Re: JT1CO QSL (score: 1): Author: Herbert Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>; Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:28:38 -0400; I would be happy for a QSO alone....just to know I could break the seemingly Auroral barrier. My location in the Eastern Caribbean makes the path at 5 degree chances between very very slim to none. I; /archives//html/Topband/2009-12/msg00207.html (7,909 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: : Re: JT1CO QSL (score: 1): Author: "Glenn Wyant" <va3dx@sympatico.ca>; Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:05:30 -0500; LOTW your loss ( paper QSLs ) vs LOTW does not make the qso trivial Having a paper qsl vs a LOTW confirmation is equally valid " The qso was made " but confirmed by a different medium, thats all. If; /archives//html/Topband/2009-12/msg00209.html (7,628 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]