Just to set the record straight I have never implied, suggested, or said
anything about fraud or any kind of 'hanky-panky.' The guys, like you, who are
advocating changing logs are doing/suggesting it to right a wrong.
73
MAL N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Turner
To: N7MAL
Cc: CQ Contest
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 1:45
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] e QSL
That would be a rare event, but if both N7ML and N7MAL sent QSL cards with
the same date, time, mode and band, what would you deduce happened? My guess is
they both believed they had a valid QSO and that station ABC busted one or both
calls. What other explanation could there be? And if ABC did bust one or both
calls, why not correct the error? Are you suspecting some kind of fraud on
either station's part?
--
Bill, W6WRT
_______________________________________________________________
Original Message:
N7MAL wrote:
I have received many emails telling me the benefit of the doubt must go to
logging error and send the QSL if the call is reasonably close. Here is a true
scenario that has played out no less than 20 times in the past few years.
I call station ABC, he responds N7ML ur 599. If I recognize ABC busted the call
I correct it but sometimes in heavy QRM I miss it. Sometimes ABC is actually
responding to N7ML and I miss that to especially in a split operation. N7ML,
Craig, is a real DXer and Contester, I run across him all the time.
Now I send ABC a card. What is ABC supposed to do, after all N7ML and N7MAL are
only off by a letter and the time is right. ABC's only choice is to return my
card marked not in the log. I'm sure there are many more similar scenario's
with similar calls.
As unpopular as it seems what's in the log is what must be the determining
factor.
MAL N7MAL
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|