Re: [IRCA] Poor Excuses kill this hobby

["Paul B. Walker, Jr." <walkerbroadcasting@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim:

Very very well said.

I've had good luck arranging DX Test, due in part to the fact that the folks
I've asked are all friend sof mnie, and as a broadcaster, I know exactly how
to approach the situation.

Like i said, I DX for fun now.. and I'll only usually request a QSL if it's
reception that is completely unexpected or out of the ordinary. I think we
DX'ers need to be happy with what the stations do for us by simply running
the DX tests well outside of normal business hous, staying up late and not
being compensated for it... imagine running a DX test for 2 hours, then
going to bed and have to be up 5 hours later?

I did that once... and I didn't have 5 hours, I had to get up in 3 1/2
hours.  People need to understanding running a radio station is NOT nearly
as easy, stress free and a walk in the park as they may think. I speak from
expierience, as a broadcaster.

Count a DX test as a favor.. and anything beyond that, QSL or whatever....as
icing on an already sweet cake.  Things will work out better that way


Paul Walker



On Nov 23, 2007 8:38 AM, Jim Pogue <KH2AR@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Konnie,
>
> I think the issue here is not "whether" stations who test are asked to
> QSL,
> but "what" actually constitutes a QSL. Speaking from experience and many
> conversations with previous BTCs Les and J.D., I can testify to the fact
> that it is becoming more and more difficult to get stations and CE's
> (whether hams or not) to even consider doing a test. We are lucky to get a
> 10 percent response on our requests for tests, and even fewer of those are
> affirmatives.
>
> When I contact a station, part of the request is always a clear
> explanation
> that DXers who send reception reports are going to expect to hear back
> from
> the station with a verification of their reception if their report is
> correct. The brochure that goes along in each test request package also
> includes an explanation of QSLing and makes it clear that DXers have that
> expectation in response to a reception report.
>
> As I said before, I don't think it is appropriate - especially since the
> station is generally doing us a BIG favor by conducting the test - to
> insist
> that their responses to DXers be done jot and tittle the way we want.
> Again,
> this is not an area where I believe a major education program for
> broadcasters is appropriate.
>
> Yes, I am a ham, and on those rare occasions when I get a request for a
> QSL,
> I do so 100 percent. I can't say the same for all other hams. Sometimes I
> get stiffed there too, just as I do by broadcasters. Your comparison
> between
> ham QSLing and BCB QSLing seems a little flawed to me, since for hams, it
> should be an integral part of the hobby with (theoretically) two willing
> participants, while for BCB QSLing it is a very one-sided and tangential
> aspect, with broadcasters having a very limited - if any - interest in
> QSLing.
>
> All tests that we have scheduled this season have agreed to respond
> directly
> to DXers with verifications. If the quality of the QSL or verie is not up
> to
> your standards Konnie, I apologize. I would invite you to contact any
> stations which you feel have not provided the kind of response you want
> and
> work it out between the two of you. But if you choose to do this, please
> be
> polite and don't alienate the station personnel from future DXers by
> making
> inappropriate demands.
>
> As for no response at all, if you run into this problem, I will be more
> than
> happy to go to bat and try to explain to the person at the station just
> how
> important a QSL is, and do whatever is necessary to illicit their
> cooperation. I've already done this for a few tests from years past.
>
> OK - I hope this horse is officially dead, since my arm is getting tired
> beating it. However, if other DXers want to chime in with their opinions,
> I'm always happy to listen and learn.
>
> 73s, Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Konnie Rychalsky
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:41 PM
> To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America
>  Subject: [IRCA] Poor Excuses kill this hobby
>
>
> Jim,
>
> With all due respect, you are a ham radio operator, and the reference at
> the
> bottom of your recent post ( QRZ.com ) does an excellent job at
>  "defining"
> what a QSL is, unless you have redefined it.  I in no way suggested that
> you
> insist upon the testing-station that you educate them, but come on now....
> you "ARE" a ham radio operator.... and wouldn't it help to a) when you ask
> a
> station to run a test, ask them if they have a QSL available, b) if not,
> offer one, and c) it would be nice to let us know?????  Ham radio
> operators
> know what QSLs are, and no news to you I'm sure.  Aren't you of all people
> suppossed to encourage the hobby of radio?  Doesn't Ham radio include
> QSLs???
>
> To everyone on this list, are you implying that even if you do coordinate
> a
> DX test, it's possible a QSL will not be issued?  If indeed possible,
> isn't
> it worth asking?  Most QSLs I receive from stations are from those who
> were
> or currently are Ham radio operators.  I will remain gratefull with a
> "QSL."
> I include a friendly letter with my reports showing examples of QSLs, even
> on an idea for a quick make-shift QSL if the station doesn't have one [and
> I'll add I've received phonecalls in return stating they were interested.]
> Maybe if you'll ask, you'll be surprised on the answer, and therefore help
> the station and the hobby.  The reason for hearing a distant station is to
> have your reception confirmed, as proof, and that is done via a QSL card.
> Somehow, coordinating a test and not checking into a QSL response just
> falls
> short to the "hobby" that began long before you or I were even born.  To
> settle for less, doesn't help the hobby.  Personally, anything less is
> just
> that, something less.
>
> I believe your response has lead me to question if it is worth staying up,
> or getting up, to listen to a test anymore.  Who's suppossed to share the
> DX
> & QSL with the station, if the test coordinator doesn't?  Don't you think
> that if a station will not issue a QSL, we should know that ahead of time?
> I cannot find your explanation to ask, or educate, adequatly helps the
> hobby.
>
> A fish is a fish, a worm is a worm, and a QSL is a QSL.  As for "these
> days"
> one of the problems of receiving less than a QSL just may be found in your
> response.  Maybe instead of a stamp, each DXer can send in a dollar, and
> with the $10 - $20, you can supply the station with a gift...uh, QSL
> cards!!!!!! about 100 worth.  You will have left the hobby a better place
> than you found it.
>
> Then, dxers will be gratefull to you and the IRCA for making a difference.
> What is the IRCA for anyway?  And coming from a Ham radio operator
> ????????????
>
> God, that was simple.  People, stop settling for less, and poor excuses.
> Get involved in your hobby!  Stop looking for what you can get, and add
> selfishly to a raggetty old shoe box full of mold and mildew stuck in a
> closet that won't see light for another ten years... and starting looking
> on
> how to give to others, including an education on what a QSL really is, and
> supply them.  There needs to be a serious attitude shift here.  That
> should
> start the keyboards clicking, eh?
>
> Konnie
> SW CT
> > From: KH2AR@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 22 Nov
> 2007
> 21:31:09 -0600> Subject: Re: [IRCA] QSL from WIGG 1420 for DX TEST> >
> Folks,
> I gotta say, any time you get a response from a station these days> and
> the
> "intent" is to verify your reception, you need to be grateful. I am>
> certain
> that this was the intent by WIGG. The days of insisting upon a full> data
> verification with date, time, frequency, power, etc., and an> unambiguous
> "your reception is verified" statement or the like are gone. In> a word,
> no,
> not all stations are aware of what constitutes what we DXers> would
> categorize as a full data QSL. And I'm not about to try and launch an>
> education program. Again, we are lucky to get the test and a snail-mail>
> response to our reception reports at all.> >
>
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx