Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+TR\s+QSO\s+TIME\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+TR\s+QSO\s+TIME\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: TR QSO TIME (score: 1): Author: "Stewart Bryant" <[email protected]>; Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 15:13:07 +0000; I would agree that a qso on slow morse could take a few hours during a session and that would be acceptable but to call back next day with a reply is stupid and not credible. I can think of a number; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-02/msg00562.html (8,915 bytes)
2. LF: TR QSO TIME (score: 1): Author: "MAL HAMILTON" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:49:23 +0100; Someone has suggested a qso would be valid if it took 24 hours. I think this is rediculous, because it is not likely that any operator would continuously try for this period of time. So for one signa; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-02/msg00606.html (8,602 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]