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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Remote\s+now\s+DXCC\?\?\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:01:16 -0700; Why are we centered on remote operations dirtying up the DXCC program? DXCC is far from clean now and from the limited amount of reading available people have been scamming DXCC long before I was lic; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00722.html (15,895 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: Michael Adams <mda@n1en.org>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:24:18 +0000; The way I look at the recent rule tweak is that the ARRL is trying to recognize evolving technology and trends in a manner harmonious to what's already been acceptable under the DXCC rules. Hasn't it; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00725.html (9,785 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:02:43 -0600; Yes the DXCC award you have earned is yours. But the problem is the publishing of the standings. The cheaters, commercial RHR users, ethical types are all grouped together. If the standings were not; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00726.html (11,633 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: "Larry" <lknain@nc.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:06:35 -0500; You are suggesting something like WAS where all QSO have to be made within a 25 mile radius (something close to that). 73, Larry W6NWS --Original Message-- From: Michael Adams Sent: Friday, February; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00727.html (11,494 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:42:24 -0700; Why does publishing the results change anything. Is there a prize for being Honor Roll number 1? How do you account for all the other dirty contacts on the DXCC rolls? Those are just ignored and only; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00730.html (12,897 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:34:36 -0600; Response below ** --Original Message-- Why does publishing the results change anything. Is there a prize for being Honor Roll number 1? ** yes How do you account for all the other dirty contacts on t; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00737.html (10,539 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: "Gary Smith" <Gary@ka1j.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:37:56 -0500; As to this specific thing; If someone is in another country close to rare DX, visits a ham and uses their station and then uses their own home call when making the easy Q, that's cheating. This kind; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00740.html (9,741 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:07:40 -0600; Yes you are probably right that protesting won't change a thing. But should that mean that when something negative like this happens, that voicing an objection is not considered? Should we just shrug; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00742.html (10,617 bytes)
9. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:21:25 -0700; What bad thing happened? A bunch of guys made contacts. Nothing bad happened. A sick station owner gets to build a station and have people operate it. In this case nothing bad happened. Why turn this; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00743.html (11,196 bytes)
10. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: "Gary Smith" <Gary@ka1j.com>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:31:08 -0500; It's not that my opinion really matters to anyone but me. I was thinking more that right or wrong, somebody somewhere will do wrong. I wasn't thinking as much along the lines of the complaining not h; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00744.html (12,492 bytes)
11. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: Mark Langenfeld <lmlangenfeld@tds.net>; Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:47:38 -0500 (EST); The irony of setting out to win at all costs is that it cheapens the victories. _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00745.html (6,384 bytes)
12. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:32:03 -0800; Doug, I don't think using remotes in different countries would be permitted even under the most liberal interpretation of the new ARRL DXCC rules. As far as I know, for example, using the RHR site in; /archives//html/Topband/2015-02/msg00779.html (11,020 bytes)
13. Re: Topband: Remote now DXCC?? (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:19:54 -0700; This being made is that anyone could improperly, illegally, whatever use their own call...Ie a USA call from an Italy remote to work some rare DX. It certainly can and it probably happens. Cheaters w; /archives//html/Topband/2015-03/msg00000.html (10,207 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]