K4SB wrote:
> Not at all. The log checking program in its present form would find
> the "bust" when compared against your log, and I commend you for
> sending it in. Those who logged WD4ASZ would unfortunately get credit.
>
> But, I think you have missed the point. The purpose I proposed will
> not help in the above problem, but ( and I am assuming the following
> calls are not issued ), if someone logged you WB4AHZ, and that call is
> not issued, they get a bust without any doubt. And there are numerous
> other combinations of your call which may or may not be issued.
>
> My suggestion was to make it a 100% certainly that a call which is not
> issued, for example my old call in 1955, K4DJC, will generate a
> guaranteed bust.
Your idea would give credit for WD4ASZ, and any other "issued"
combination of my busted call, which I disagree with.
The "current" log checking process, would "ding" WD4ASZ, WB4AHZ, and any
other combination that cannot be verified (not issued, busted as
verified by comparing logs, etc.)
I fail to see how your idea would improve log-checking ... it'll allow
more "bad" QSO's to be counted, which is NOT the point of log-checking.
Ron, WD4AHZ
|