Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/4EBIRKMKQ6WNWXPMI5CN3XBOMRW7TP5A/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "4EBIRKMKQ6WNWXPMI5CN3XBOMRW7TP5A",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/7VUPA24MGFKJYOAS3U74YNVDEW5NPQYU/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "crownhaven (a) bellsouth.net",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "Crownhaven",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re:  Re: VUCC costs",
    "date": "2011-01-24T21:09:18Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/BUNPJGWPO6AE2SSAQ6HT5AV37D7DIK4A/",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "I couldn't agree more with Tim.  It is easier to get a card out of \nBhutan than it is from some of these VHF ops that operate on a regular \nbasis.  I would love to print the list of calls that I have here that \nwill just not respond to an SASE.  I won't because I'm typically \ncastigated whenever I bring the issue up.  I realize this is a hobby as \nthe defenders of the non-QSLers love to point out but replying to a card \nis part of that hobby.  Or used to be.  At least post prominently \nwherever your call is displayed that you won't QSL.  Or something.\n\nSteve, N4JQQ, EM55\n\nOn 1/24/2011 1:36 PM, Tim Marek wrote:\n> John and the rest of you LOTW doubters...\n>\n> The costs to use LOTW for VUCC, DXCC, or WAS contact credits IS \n> NOTHING compared to the time, effort and money needed to collect cards \n> the old fashioned way!  At near a buck a card domestically (Over 2$ \n> Internationally) for the stamps to send them and as well as a SASE for \n> their return.... all the waiting.... Lost or stolen mail, People who \n> NEVER reply, followed by dealing with the cards after their collected, \n> the hand sorting and filling in paper forms... what a royal pain and \n> more importantly... a very inneficient way to do things...\n>\n> With the new LOTW system, you simply upload your logs, wait for them \n> to cross confirm with other uploaded logs, spend less than 20 cents \n> per QSO to INSTANTLY use those QSL credits for awards, with little \n> muss or fuss...\n>\n> I really dont see what the problems is.... Its faster, safer, cheaper, \n> and your log data is backed up forever.... Talk about a lasting legacy \n> of your efforts!\n>\n> Compared to the OLD FASHIONED way of handling the laborious chore of \n> QSLing, LOTW is a God send saving me much time, money, and alot of \n> hand writing that I truly hate. (Try living in a rare state and you \n> will understand)\n>\n> As one who has personally activated 57 grids at one time or another \n> (Alot of them RARE), there is now a incentive to sort out and upload \n> all those logs from the past 20 years. Not only will it help others \n> who need those rare grids (CM86, CM95, CM96, CN90, CN91, CN92, DN00, \n> DN10, DN11, DN20, DM07, DM17, DM18, DM19, DM27, DM28, and DM29 just to \n> name a few) but... I can now file for additional 6M VUCC's from \n> several of those grids as they were June Contest efforts from tall \n> mountains with large antennas and KW power where more than 100 Grids \n> was easily accomplished...\n>\n> Think about it... \"Nothing Is Free\"... the prices they ask are \n> reasonable, and once uploaded who better to back up your logs than \n> those whom you apply to for the awards!\n>\n> Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right \n> now to dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare \n> and precious contacts from being lost forever) and collect those \n> contact credits w/o lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp...\n>\n> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm.... sk\n>\n> PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not \n> perfect, but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT!\n>\n> ----- Original Message ----- From: \"John Geiger\" <[email protected]>\n> To: <[email protected]>; \"Amsat-Bb@Amsat. Org\" <[email protected]>; \n> \"'VHF REFLECTOR'\" <[email protected]>\n> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:07 PM\n> Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs\n>\n>\n>> I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter \n>> VUCCs, but given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get \n>> an endorsement for an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this \n>> new insane fee schedule doesn't kill VUCC submissions.  I think AMSAT \n>> awards will be getting much more popular. 73s John AA5JG\n>>\n>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>\n>> To: <[email protected]>\n>> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM\n>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs\n>>> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. \n>>> However, I did not see what happens with LOTW submisions.\n>>> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer \n>>> award insurance as well as equipment insurance.  Just a thought.  :>)\n>>> Merle, AA4QE\n> ------\n> Submissions:                    [email protected]\n> Subscription/removal requests:  [email protected]\n> Human list administrator:       [email protected]\n> List rules and information:    http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/\n>\n>\n",
    "attachments": []
}