Original message edited for brevity... Not content.
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Shelby Summerville
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 2:23 AM
> To: CQ-Contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesters and LOTW
>
> Andrei Stchislenok wrote: "LoTW is a good thing."
SNIP
SNIP
>
> Bottom line: If you're a DX station, and need my card....do us both a
> favor,
> and send me an email request!!
Shelby,
While you apparently consider yourself a mid-level, not overly-active
contester, I would think that you are on a much higher level than me!
All to say, that LOTW is a good thing, but it has not been embraced by the
DX community at large, probably because of the complex and cumbersome
registration process. One of our "mid-level" contesters W7BUN (SK) also
faced the mountain of cards issue.
He, and I suspect you also, had a fairly big signal on the bands, and as
such he was heard and worked by many of the second and third layer contest
stations, all wanting a QSL from Washington state!
Now, Washington is no rarer than Kentucky, but the QSL's kept coming
anyways! Jerry W7BUN, was an old fashioned type and returned each and every
QSL with a card of his own, but in the end, I think that he too, got a
little tired of the whole mess.
Now, as a low level contest type, I get a few cards after a contest also,
but many more via the LOTW, especially the RTTY contests. I prefer the LOTW
for all the reasons mentioned above, not the least of which is that I really
dislike the paperwork aspects of the service.
I've been contesting off and on for the better part of two decades, but
never put in a score/log because it was too time consuming. Now, All I have
to do is to upload a log file to the contest sponsor and the LOTW site and
I'm done.
So easy, and I still have to wait to see how far up from the bottom I am!
73's from the lowest level contester, and thanks for the Q's!
Gary WG7X
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|