On Fri, 19 Jan 1996 19:35:52 -0800 (PST) Joe_Wilkowski@mc.xerox.com wrote:
>I'm sorry, I have to agree with Daves reasoning, statistically
> speaking, he will only eliminate a very few contacts using this
> process, and if you had to be the guy with the legitimate contact that
> no one else heard and stretched reasonability, then its a jungle out
> there, feces occur ........
I should say it does! Why should a station owner put in the effort to build a
first-class station to enable him to work mults/QSOs that others won't get just
to have the contacts removed from the log?
No disrespect to the late N4IN, but just because a log checker has a "feeling"
that a QSO may not be good is no reason to remove it. In Dave's case, there
was
QSL proof that the contact was good. Removal of such a QSO is beyond
ridiculous.
Talk about "stretched reasonability" Sheesh!
The term "feces" definitely does apply.
73 de Lee
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lee Hiers
Cornelia, GA
aa4ga@stc.net
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|