On 9/6/21 8:35 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
* On 2021 06 Sep 17:41 -0500, Doug Smith wrote:
For years I was the adjudicator for the TNQP and still am the backup guy. I
haven't run Nate's log through the checking software yet but it looks
straightforward & I don't remember having significant issues
* On 2021 06 Sep 14:43 -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> The WYSIWYG multiplier method was confused by the fact I was entering
> two values in the exchange field--the other op's name and county. If I
> worked another station in the same county WYSIWYG counted it as a new
> mult.
I may have avoided
* On 2021 06 Sep 17:41 -0500, Doug Smith wrote:
> For years I was the adjudicator for the TNQP and still am the backup guy. I
> haven't run Nate's log through the checking software yet but it looks
> straightforward & I don't remember having significant issues with TLF output
> in the past.
Hi
For years I was the adjudicator for the TNQP and still am the backup
guy. I haven't run Nate's log through the checking software yet but it
looks straightforward & I don't remember having significant issues with
TLF output in the past.
One thing I did notice is the LOCATION: tag in the
Sorry this is after the fact as the Tennessee QP was yesterday.
Overall, this was easy for Tlf as the exchange was signal report and
county (instate) and signal report and state/province (outstate). The
only difference from the KS QP was making the mults per band rather than
once.
As usual, my
Overall Tlf did better than propagation into CO from this location.
The WYSIWYG multiplier method was confused by the fact I was entering
two values in the exchange field--the other op's name and county. If I
worked another station in the same county WYSIWYG counted it as a new
mult.
The other
