G4DYO@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph.
>
> I am a #1Slot Honor Roller and was interested in your remarks about QSLing.
> However, I beg to differ. For some years now i have preached the "no QSL"
> gospel, which has been accepted by some and rejected by others. I used to
> QSL on a regular basis; then in 1985 I became editor of DX News Sheet for ten
> years. During that period I saw and heard enough QSLing corruption to
> convince me that the possession of a card nowadays means nothing - certainly
> NOT that the holder has had a QSO!
>
> Not only is there corruption as far as the cards are concerned - offers from
> guys of any DX QSL card I ever wanted in exchange for others, etc, but there
> are the daily "cheating nets" - you know the kind of thing "Good Contact"
> when no contact whatsoever has taken place. Some of those people will seek,
> an obtain cards for those contacts and will then submit them for DXCC, IOTA
> or whatever and duly climb the respective Honor Rolls.
>
> Many years ago I visited ZL and collected my Worked All Pacific parchment
> direct from Jock White. I offered the cards and he said NZART practise an
> "honesty" policy and they had no reason to believe that the system was abused
> any more than if cards were needed. My WAP is # 611 and #17 for G. I am
> certain that if there was regular abuse of the NZART system those serial
> would be dramatically higher.
>
> My view is that the requirement for QSLs ought to be removed from all major
> award programes. That would stop crooked QSLers, fraud, extra costs for
> DXpeditions, prevent clogged up bureaux, etc (the RSGB destroyed over
> 1,000,000 uncollected cards last year!). When amateur radio first started
> QSL cards meant something - and I have no objection nowadays to those who
> genuinely collect them or wish to mark some very special QSO by exchanging
> them. However, for award collecting - when we can all work around the world
> with S9 signals - what's the point in "confirming" it?
>
> Vy 73 de Bren, G4DYO
> (Editor UK DX Foundation Newsletter)Bren,
Thanks for the note. I agree with alot that you say, but the point is
that as long as the ARRL requires a piece of physical evidence of a
contact, no matter how it was made, then we are stuck with present
deteriorating situation.
Tnx & Best wishes,
Ralph, W1ZK
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
|