November 02, 2013 12:31PM
No, the same cannot be said for eQSLs; it's an entirely different thing. To get an eQSL, the listener has to be sitting at the radio listening, write an ereport, and press Send. Pretty much the same as sending a report thru the mail. eQSLs are as valid as snail-mail QSLs in my book. Just faster. I have no problem with that.

My point is that "SDR catches" do not require any human intervention; the SDR does all the work. To ask for a QSL (of any sort) for these catches seems to be cheating, at least to me - the listener was asleep, or at work, or whatever, and did NOT actually hear the broadcast. How can someone who did NOT hear the broadcast feel good about receiving a QSL for it?

BTW, I have nothing against SDRs, either; they certainly have their place. The old WinRadio I have seems to have great ears, even compared to my R-75. It's the very late reports that seem useless, and acquiring QSLs for those non-receptions that bothers me.

-.-. --.-
Nobody wants a cheap hairpiece, but everybody wants a low-price toupe'.
Subject Author Views Posted

Questionable practice..?

jtart 755 November 02, 2013 10:12AM

Re: Questionable practice..?

Pat Murphy 469 November 02, 2013 10:23AM

Re: Questionable practice..?

jtart 485 November 02, 2013 12:31PM

Re: Questionable practice..?

Pat Murphy 438 November 02, 2013 02:36PM

Re: Questionable practice..?

BramStoker 478 November 02, 2013 01:32PM

Re: Questionable practice..?

jtart 475 November 02, 2013 02:28PM

Re: Questionable practice..?

Lee 531 November 05, 2013 08:53AM

Re: Questionable practice..?

jtart 440 November 05, 2013 01:22PM

Re: Questionable practice..?

Pat Murphy 440 November 05, 2013 01:36PM

Re: Questionable practice..?

Lee 511 November 06, 2013 01:09PM

Re: Questionable practice..?

ThaDood 455 November 05, 2013 03:27PM

Re: Questionable practice..?

Bill F 382 November 12, 2013 11:18PM

Re: Questionable practice..?

ff 462 November 17, 2013 01:10PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login