![](\"http:\/\/www.hamsexy.com\/ingsoc-small.jpg\")
We got this letter in our Hamsexy mail sack the other day, with a request to publish it on the site. So, we said…. shit…. why not? What else do we have to put on the site? Since we are, for some reason, seen as QRZ’s direct competition, we decided to run with it. This letter was submitted by Rob AF0H<\/b> from Missouri. <\/p>\n
We feel that this letter has a legitimate complaint since searching for AF0H in both the ARRL and the QRZ listings give totally different results. This isn’t the first time that we’ve found problems with the QRZ callsign search – which strikes us as odd considering QRZ sells their sometimes-incorrect and proven-incomplete callbooks every year for money. <\/p>\n
Anyhow, here’s AF0H’s letter to Fred:<\/p>\n
Date: 6\/19\/2005 3:42:24 PM Central Daylight Time
\nFrom: Af0h3943
\nTo: aa7bq@qrz.com <\/p>\n
You don’t list quite a large number of ham’s in you database. Why is this? <\/p>\n
Your database (on qrz) is considered to be the largest and most accurate in the world next to the FCC, etc. Many consider your site’s database to be equal to the FCC’s. Knowing this as you do, how can you delete and not represent ham’s with valid callsigns? Just because you don’t like them or their attitude doesn’t give you the right or duty to delete them from the lookup-database. <\/p>\n
Since it is your site, you do have the right to make any corrections \/ deletions you want. However, in order to do this, you need to explain that in your callsign database. Something like “QRZ callsign database, of ham’s we choose to represent.) <\/p>\n
I for one said ‘Fix it or Nix it’ as many others have simply because your editors would not fix a simple problem that we were having at the time. Simple ones like e-mail, biography, login problems, etc. Rather than fix these problems, you delete them. <\/p>\n
This is very pathetic and absolutely childish. I would be embarassed to own and advertise a site that acted in this manner. I would expect such behavior from 10-yr old children or a ‘clique’ in high-school, but this behavoir is not professional an any way, shape, form, or fashion whatsoever. <\/p>\n
You really need to reconsider your policy of de-listing ham’s rather than working toward the common goal of enhancing \/ furthering the hobby and it’s continual growth and development. <\/p>\n
What you’re doing is downing the hobby and turning it into a buddy-buddy system. As many problems as this hobby faces at this point in time – BPL, Lessening of Technical requirements, degrading behavior on the bands, etc. – this is one time when ALL ham’s need to stick together (ALL ham’s) and fight for the cause. <\/p>\n
What you’re doing is not right and your site should be boy-cotted until your policy changes and all ham’s that’ve been deleted are re-listed on your database. <\/p>\n
73 de
\naf0h – Rob <\/p>\n
P.S. – I’m not just a loud-mouth from 3.943, i’m also a registered member and regular Net-Control Station for the 3.905 Century Club Net. If I behaved and acted that badly on the air, the Century Club Net wouldn’t dare let me represent them by being Net Control for their 40-meter SSB Early Net (the most heavily populated net they run). And, certainly do not deserve to not be represented by any Ham Radio Callsign Lookup Database – all because your editors wouldn’t fix a simple problem for me. <\/p>\n
![](\"http:\/\/www.hamsexy.com\/qrzcom240.gif\"\/)
We got this letter in our Hamsexy mail sack the other day, with a request to publish it on the site. So, we said…. shit…. why not? What else do we have to put on the site? Since we are, … Continue reading