Ron,
You make an interesting point. Why does ARRL want to define a standard and
determine the rules? Could it be because DXCC is their awards program?
Where they "slow" to pick up the ball? I think they were being cautious.
And maybe a little too conservative for my tastes too. Nevertheless, they
have taken action.
And I'm not sure why a fuss is now being made over "double blind." First,
that is indeed how it is done with paper QSL's -- after all, I send you a
card thinking that I made a contact, but until I either see your log or get
your card in return, how do I know it's there? And until you get my card,
ditto. Isn't that "double blind?" Second, this has been something that
has been requested of ALL on line logs for quite some time, and for good
reason. It is to prevent someone from fraudulently claiming a contact
actually made with another station as theirs as a "busted call." There was
a DXpedition last year where one of the ops posted complete logs early, and
they had to be recalled for that very reason.
73, ron wn3vaw
"Why, he's no fun, he fell right over."
-- The Firesign Theatre
----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald Rossi <rrossi@btv.ibm.com>
To: Ron Notarius WN3VAW <wn3vaw@fyi.net>
Cc: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
Ron Notarius WN3VAW wrote:
>
> K1IR's post disappoints me.
>
> Why is any change blamed on ARRL HQ, why is it always bad, and why is
always
> the ARRL which is at fault?
They were slow to pick up the ball on this issue, but still want to define a
standard and determine the rules. The folks that started eQSL are forward
looking and getting the job done. Double blind is not how it is done for
paper,
why should it be done that way electronically? In answer to "how would you
make
this work?"...we have a working model.
--
73 es God Bless de KK1L...ron (kk1l@arrl.net) <><
QTH: Jericho, Vermont
My page: http://www.qsl.net/kk1l
|