[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] integrity in qsling (was ARRL sez no)

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] integrity in qsling (was ARRL sez no)
From: kr2q@optonline.net
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:45:46 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Let me get this straight....

It is "common knowledge" (not to me) that if one begs and pleads that one can 
get a sympathy
qsl out of the qsl mgr.  So the process of issuing qsl's is corrupted!  And the 
solution to QSL mgr
corruption is to come up with this ruling?  

Also...when I get a qsl, to look, I just plug in the callsign.  If I have the 
guy in my log on several
bands/modes, I fill out the qsl for all of 'em, no matter what he is "asking" 
for on his card.  I don't
check the time, I don't even check the date.  If it from a contest, well, who 
cares?  If he's "in the log"
he gets a qsl.  If he is not in the log (even if he is "close), he gets zip.  
Am I the only one who thinks
this way?

I think posting logs on line if FB for DxPeds.  If you worked the guy, you can 
stop calling that band/
mode/etc.  If you see he busted your call, you keep trying until you get in the 
log the right way.  

I still can't believe that if someone sends in their QSL to a DxPed based on a 
simple listing of "only"
the callsign, that the qsl mgr isn't going to issue a qsl based simply a "hit" 
in the log, no matter what
time is logged.  I see nothing wrong with that.  But you're telling me that you 
think they will be
coerced into issuing a qsl for a "close" callsign, but that by leaving out the 
"details" on-line, that this
will "solve" the perceived (or real) issue?  What kind of thinking is this?

Holy cow.

de Doug KR2Q
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] integrity in qsling (was ARRL sez no), kr2q <=