[CQ-Contest] Public access to logs

Joe Subich, W4TV w4tv at subich.com
Sun Mar 2 11:12:01 EST 2008


> I think a VAST majority of DXCC submissions come from a 
> contest like the CQWW!! 

Put differently, one or both parties to a large number of 
QSOs in CQWW is a participant in the DXCC program.  For an 
"affiliated third party" who is not a participant in DXCC to 
cause those participants to violate the rules of the DXCC 
program - or to make them choose between participation in 
DXCC and CQWW is wrong.  Particularly when the contest sponsor 
can accomplish their goals in a way that does not cause any 
party to violate the rules of the DXCC program. 

> DXCC is a sham anymore, it is meaningless now days.  

DXCC is not a sham and those who would attempt to undermine 
its integrity should be censured severely.    


> -----Original Message-----
> From: KI9A at aol.com [mailto:KI9A at aol.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:42 AM
> To: w4tv at subich.com; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Public access to logs
> 
> 
> I'm still confused with this one. 
> 
> I think a VAST majority of DXCC submissions come from a 
> contest like the CQWW!! 
> 
> This publication of logs is one of the silliest threads yet. 
> In this day of computers, and great color printers, I can 
> manufacture about any QSL I want, short of the obvious really 
> rare ones, and, even at that, I'd bet lunch that I could slip 
> 70-80% of phoney cards past ARRL field checkers.  Like I said 
> before, on purpose, I printed off 4 EQSL cards, and asked 3 
> members of the local DX club ( all honor roll guys), which 2 
> were DXCC filed checkers, if they saw anything wrong with 
> submitting these cards. They all looked, and said all the 
> info was there, and looked fine. Then I told them they were 
> printed from EQSL. At that point, they changed their minds. 
> Now, if I were not with conscious, I could have submitted 
> those cards, and got credit for them.
> 
> DXCC is a sham anymore, it is meaningless now days.  
> 
> So, what is more of harm? Publishing a guys log, or, being 
> able to fool honor roll DXCC'ers ( and field checkers), with 
> bogus cards?  
> 
> Exactly what is the issue with seeing a published log? 
> Online, or not, if my call is not in that log, I don't get a 
> card....And, if I were a loser, I could still make up a card 
> on my computer, with all of the info on it ( phoney of 
> course), and submit it, and with a 99% chance, I'd get credit.
> 
> I have well over 300 DXCC worked, and 4 band DXCC so far with 
> low dipoles. I have a paper that says I have 125 confirmed, 
> and, that is stuck in the drawer, maybe some day I can line a 
> birdcage with it, but, I have satisfaction of knowing I am a 
> member of the 300+ DXCC ham community. 
> 
> 73-Chuck KI9A 
> 
> In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:24:40 A.M. Central Standard 
> Time, w4tv at subich.com writes:
> 
> > Not sure I get this comment: Just what, exactly, is CQ trying 
> > to "get away with"?
> 
> To violate the rules of DXCC.  
> 
> > CQ does not answer to the ARRL. And I can think of no law or 
> > regulation, that CQ is obliged to obey, forbidding the 
> > publication of logs.
> 
> CQWW is a DX contest ... the first, and preeminent DX awards 
> program is DXCC.  It certainly looks like CQ does not care 
> about anything beyond their little "world" at best or are 
> intentionally trying to damage DXCC at the worst. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sandy Taylor [mailto:ve4xt at mts.net] 
> > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 12:31 AM
> > To: 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; KI9A at aol.com; cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Public access to logs
> > 
> > 
> > That's exactly why all of my eQSL cards explicitly state "not 
> > valid for any award."  It takes a little common sense rather 
> > that trying to "get away with something" like CQ is doing.  
> > 
> > Not sure I get this comment: Just what, exactly, is CQ trying 
> > to "get away
> > with"?
> > 
> > CQ does not answer to the ARRL. And I can think of no law or 
> > regulation,
> > that CQ is obliged to obey, forbidding the publication of logs.
> > 
> > 73, Kelly
> > Ve4xt
> > 



More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list