[DX] eQSL cards - NOW ACCEPTED - for DXCC

Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:46:41 -0500

Charles:

It's still out of context since we don't know exactly what Bill was replying
to.  Nor is it clear that Bill had intended this public dissemenation at
this time.  But in any event... have you really read the whole thing, or
skimmed it for the good parts?  I think Bill's thoughts are very clear, but
what he is saying and what is being claimed as his statements aren't exactly
the same thing.

Note that there's a big, big if in there, regarding the actions of  "Dave,"
whomever that is supposed to be:
"assuming he phyiscally checks the log."

And gee, Bill is saying that computer generated cards are OK.  So why the
claim of "professionally printed" cards?  Does that mean it's "professional"
because someone's being paid to print them?  Does that imply that we're
buying a QSL card?  (In any case, the "professional" part appears to be the
opinion of W3ZJ, not NC1L.)

I also suspect the entire exchange since right from the start, Bill is
stating right at the begininng that he was previously unaware that "Dave"
and eQSL was mailing cards out.  From that point on, the tone of the email
appears to have an "well, if that's true, then..." tone to it.  That's
hardly a policy statement.  And the implication herein from the start is
that this is a change in policy by the ARRL -- which the email actually make
a clear point that it is NOT.  In short, it is the actions of eQSL that have
changed, not the ARRL.  Therefore, some of the statements on the web page
are misleading.

In any case, if eQSL wishes to go into the QSL manager business, which is
what is implied in all this (and which is a big surprise, apparently, to
Bill, right at the getgo), fine!  Do it, go have fun.  But don't sell me a
printed card under the guise of "the all electronic QSL system. "

In any event, I'll wait for Bill to make a direct, public, policy statement
on his own.

73

----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Johnston <[email protected]>
To: Ron Notarius WN3VAW <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [DX] eQSL cards - NOW ACCEPTED - for DXCC

Here ya go Ron....(and others)
This was posted this morning (on the eQSL Discussion email list) and
includes Bill Moore's own words from an email by Bill and his clear
thoughts on this entire issue.

This is the entire message unedited and un-snipped except the headers
are not included.  I can post them too if need be...
Here it is...
--------------------------
Score 1 for the Gipper. Professionally printed and mailed eQSL's
now have ARRL's official stamp of approval. Please read the
following note from Bill Moore, NC1L, DXCC Manager to me. I would
have clipped it for brevity, the last paragraph is what counts but
Bill asks that the message only be used in it's entirety.

Happy eQSLing

----
73, Rich - W3ZJ

Hi Rich:

Something does not sound right here. You are saying that Dave is
physically
mailing out QSL cards by the US postal system? This is news to me.

If you are my QSL manager and I send you my logs by e-mail, I am
sending
them direct from point A to point B. Just as if I was sending them
to you by
regular mail. This is OK. I remember somewhere several years ago
that some
people used to get their logs over the air on RTTY and another
digital mode
(AMTOR I think). Not a problem.

However, if as the result of a log being sent to E-QSL, someone
goes in and
receives a card electronically and uses it for DXCC, that e-QSL
cannot be
accepted for DXCC credit under rule 2. I spent a bit of time with
a simple
shareware program to prove the unreliability of that method.

However, if Dave, acting as QSL manager with station logs
completes a card
(even one from his printer) and sends it by mail to you, this is
an
acceptable exchange and we have see this often for several years
now.
(assuming he phyiscally checks the log). Many people use self-made
cards
from their printer. Each one is evaluated on a case by case basis,
and many
times under Section IV rule 4(b) we have conducted an audit to
insure the
vaildity of a card like this.

In cases like this it would be REAL nice if they used a stamp or
placed
their initials or signature on it, but this is not required by the
rules.
However, this issue has been discussed and has been given some
consideration.

To clarify, if Dave is sending out cards through the US Postal
System as the
result of the log(s) he receives, this is OK. (This would
basically be
operating as QSL manager).

Regards,

Bill Moore NC1L
DXCC Manager

Note: Use of this message is authorized in discussions as long as
it is used
in its entirity and as long as parts are not edited out.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/ELTolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
(No subject or text body entries are required.)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

73  /  DX

Charles T Johnston
Prescott, Arizona - U.S.A.
[email protected]

AB7SL -  Ham Radio Pages
Official W9INN Antennas Page
www.ab7sl.com