Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Not QSL worthy" he says  (Read 8785 times)
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20666




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: September 03, 2010, 05:05:50 PM »

As a counterpoint, I suppose you all know that in FD you needn't keep much data.  Normally all that's submitted is a list of callsigns worked per band and mode, along with details of bonus point qualifiers and a statement regarding location and power used.

An actual "log" including times of the contacts made is not submitted, nor required for submission.

In many cases, all the data that is required for a QSL card actually isn't captured; and in this country at least, there is no FCC logging requirement at all.

I've worked many Field Days where we did not bother capturing data sufficient for QSL cards and as such, even though we made thousands of contacts, we didn't feel qualified to QSL any of them.

With the better computer logging programs available today, it should be easy to capture all the needed data; but not everyone uses computerized logging, and that's not required by the FD rules, either. Smiley

Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3925




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: September 03, 2010, 05:07:58 PM »

Was I the only one who thought of the Seinfeld episode?

---

And I agree - that apology has character & class.


73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
AI2IA
Member

Posts: 15




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: September 03, 2010, 07:42:18 PM »

Usually the QSL card is considered the "final courtesy."
Some hams brush off QSL cards completely.
Some place limitations such as no DX cards, or electronic cards only, or only through the bureau, or must SASE and/or send green stamps.
Some send them even years after the QSO!

Whatever the case, the card is a courtesy. Some will appreciate that and others won't.
I send out cards as often as I can, and I always send one out in response to a request regardless of who asks for it or what they send me.
So, just as you have "jammers" and "lids" and other unpleasant folk on the air, you will have bumps in the QSL pipeline, too!
Simply ignore the bad guys, count your good QSL cards, and be both courteous and happy. You will never regret it. - Ray, AI2IA
Logged
W7ETA
Member

Posts: 2527




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: September 03, 2010, 09:35:31 PM »

"Never has anyone been so dismissive and elitist as to say that a particular QSO was "not worthy."

Gotta shake off the strange response you got--it didn't have anything to do with you.

It just boiled down to "I don't send QSL cards."

73
Bob
Logged
K4YZ
Member

Posts: 26


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2010, 04:43:14 AM »

By popular demand (about a dozen emails) as well as the requests here, I have decided to reveal who this club and person is, so that no one else will waste a buck of their money on a station who does not QSL.

I think I would have handled this in a different manner...

While I share Patrick's angst over the 'rejection' of a QSL request, and I think the other correspondent's initial response was curt, to say the least, it shouldn't have been posted here without the other party's consent. 

I agree with everyone else that the apology rendered was a milestone of great ethical character.  Bravo!~

And although it's a well-heralded tradition of Amateur Radio to QSL, it's by no means mandatory or 'required'.  A simple note with the returned card "sorry, OM, unable to QSL, GL es 73" would have been more collegial.  I say this with a bit of reservation because I am actively QSLing for several awards, and the return rates (not to mention turn-around time, even with SASE) 'ain't the greatest'. 

A correspondent in another thread has suggested, and perhaps it would be worth a letter writing campaign, to ask Fred, AA7BQ, to add some kind of a 'flag' to QRZ listings so those who specifically don't want to participate in QSLing can be by-passed.  I know there are three QSL'ing options noted there, but perhaps a simple red or green star next to their address? 

As for anyone working K4YZ, your QSL card will be greatfully replied to in kind!   No SASE for XE / US / VE needed!  SWL cards welcomed.  BURO cards returned direct.

73

Steve, K4YZ
Winchester, TN

PS:  Has Amateur Radio been outlawed in South Dakota?  Any SD that will QSO/QSL for 40M CW award would be appreciated!  RSVP via QRZ.com CBA e-mail adr.  73 de K4YZ 
Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 875




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2010, 05:10:12 AM »

To All Concerned:

I want to apologize to the entire amateur community for the pompous and knee jerk reaction to the request for a QSL for a FD contact.  I have no excuse for the reaction other than I am not aware of ever receiving a QSL from Patrick.  We have an absentee Trustee who has been out of contact with the club for years.  I did not even know we had QSL cards.  I will check into the matter.  You all have a right to respond the way you did.  I can not take back those words, but I can ask that you accept my apology. 

Sincerely,

Carl Rimmer, W8KRF
President, NOARS

Carl has given his apology, he has been a man and not tried to justify his actions.
We all make mistakes, but not everyone admits their error.
All credit to Carl for taking responsibility - no one can do more.

73s
Logged
N1DVJ
Member

Posts: 530




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2010, 07:09:32 AM »

I think I would have handled this in a different manner...

While I share Patrick's angst over the 'rejection' of a QSL request, and I think the other correspondent's initial response was curt, to say the least, it shouldn't have been posted here without the other party's consent.  
I'm not sure I agree.  

From a practical standpoint, I believe that with very few exceptions, corespondence sent 'to' someone is considered to be the property of the recipient, and is theirs to do with as they see fit.  Until the appology was tendered, it was perceived as something that the recipient felt needed to see the light of day.  

I can say that if someone sent ME an email of that nature, I'd have no reservations about sharing it.  But I'd also be just as quick, if not quicker, about also passing along the appology, and my full and unconditional acceptance of it.

I also feel that sometimes the ONLY way to bring some issues to light is to FULLY bring them to light. 
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6061




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: September 04, 2010, 08:38:05 AM »

I originally said words to the effect of 'spread the info around'.  That was before I saw that the original poster already did--and has received a courteous reply.

So, as Gilda Radner is famous for saying--"Never mind."
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 08:43:28 AM by Chris J. Smith » Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!