[Moon] QSO or not?

[Dimitris Vitorakis]

Dear Gerald

now that you mentioned it...count me in too. We had a random QSO during my 
1st EME dxpedition in SV9, (SV9/SV1BTR) on April 30th 1995 at 17:30 utc on 
2m, but never received a QSL card from your side, even though I had sent 
mine. So what you are saying is that we never had a QSO?

73,
Jimmy SV1BTR

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Hilton-Jones" <David.Hilton-Jones at clneuro.ox.ac.uk>
To: <TexasRF at aol.com>; <moon at moonbounce.info>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Moon] QSO or not?


> Thanks Gerald - but does that mean my several QSOs with you were not
> valid because you have never returned a QSL card to my three cards with
> SAE and $$$?
>
> 73
>
> David, G4YTL
>
>>>> <TexasRF at aol.com> 02/05/2007 15:28 >>>
>
> As in cw, the final test of qso validity comes when QSL cards are sent.
> If  a
> qso is not in the log, then a card is not sent and there is no big
> discussion
> that takes place.
>
> We all have received cards for qso's that did not happen for  various
> reasons, both cw and digital. When that happens, we deal with it and no
> discussion,
> public or otherwise takes place.
>
> All the bickering over this JT65 vs cw qso validity has become an
> absolute
> bore and it is way past time to put all this aside.
>
> Of the 500 plus users of 2m eme these days, all but a handful have
> accepted
> the use and validity of JT65 on our eme bands. Perhaps this handful of
>
> non-believers could rethink their objections and begin making some
> positive
> contributions to the discussions.
>
> 73,
> Gerald K5GW
>
>
> In a message dated 5/2/2007 7:59:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> joe at Princeton.EDU writes:
>
> Hi Jimmy  and all,
>
> jimmyv at hol.gr wrote:
>> Dear Bernd
>>
>> thank  you for your reply.
>> I am glad it was a typing error, as this can  happen to anyone.
>> Now even a mistake in a cw qso, one side thinking  it was complete
> and
> other side
>> believing it is not, can also very  rarely happen under marginal
> conditions, even
>> to experienced  operators.
>>
>> Have a good travel & 73,
>> Jimmy  SV1BTR
>
> So, it seems that once again the "QSO Police" made a big
> noise over nothing ... and others made the noise louder and
> more  unpleasant by adding their own irrelevant interpretations.
>
> Perhaps the  most revealing sentence in the brief flurry of
> emails is this  one:
>
> DF2ZC at gmx.de wrote:
>> Of course if it had been a cw QSO and  I had made this
>> typing error, nobody would have written an email to  the
>> reflector.
>
> To all those who hunger for more activity on CW  EME,
> especially on 144 MHz: it might make a big difference if
> your  club seemed more friendly and welcoming to potential
> new members.   You seem to go out of your way to make it as
> unfriendly as  possible.
>
> -- 73, Joe,  K1JT
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon mailing  list
> Moon at moonbounce.info
> http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>
> Please  enter/update your standings:  http://www.vhf-dx.net/top.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at
> http://www.aol.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon mailing list
> Moon at moonbounce.info
> http://www.moonbounce.info/mailman/listinfo/moon
>
> Please enter/update your standings: http://www.vhf-dx.net/top.html
>