 |
|
eQSL.cc Home
Search
Login
Authors
Recent Posts| Viewing User Profile for: KC5GB GB Tittle | |||||||||||||||||
| About | Contact | ||||||||||||||||
|
Send Private Message |
||||||||||||||||
| Post Statistics | |||||||||||||||||
|
KC5GB GB Tittle has contributed to 1 posts out of 11674 total posts
(0.01%) in 5,429 days (0.00 posts per day).
20 Most recent posts:
eAward Suggestions »
It is time to introduce a non-AG certiciate program ? Mar 1, 2010 04:11 AM
(Total replies: 31)
Perhaps this horse is dead, but since I just started using eQSL last fall, allow me to beat it once more. I seems to me that the reasoning behind the AG label is faulty. Who does it benefit? Why is the onus of proof on me as an AG member trying to fulfill award requirements? If I initiate a request for an eQSL and the worked station responds via eQSL what difference does it make if that station is AG or not...to me none; I know I worked the station and our log data is in agreement. Isn't that all we go by with a paper QSL? Does anyone question that QSO? If a non-AG ham is not willing or able to spend the money, why should my legitimate QSO be rejected? Is the AG appellation simply a way to generate income? Perhaps I'm missing something very important, but after 40+ yrs of QSL'ing I'm hard put to find it. The AG rating will not stop cheating if two people decide to do it, regardless of QSL method; so what's the point? I like eQSL. I believe it to be better than LoTW, but it seems that the AG penalty being paid is borne by the wrong people. Thanks for reading this and please help me understand the rationale. 73 GB (Silver AG member) KC5GB GB Tittle |
|||||||||||||||||