<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: LOTW vs eQSL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://w3sgj.org/blog/2009/11/03/lotw-vs-eqsl/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://w3sgj.org/blog/2009/11/03/lotw-vs-eqsl/</link>
	<description>Beaver Valley Amateur Radio Association</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:49:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim - AJ4JD</title>
		<link>http://w3sgj.org/blog/2009/11/03/lotw-vs-eqsl/comment-page-1/#comment-151</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim - AJ4JD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:57:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://w3sgj.org/blog/?p=151#comment-151</guid>
		<description>I stumbled across this as I was doing a search on my XYL&#039;s boyfriend Google. I was surprised to see that my article was good enough for some one else to post it to their blog much less a club blog. Thanks for taking notice. 

Allen, I agree with you, I don&#039;t understand the controversy between the two either. They are both pretty simple to use and both are free until you want to apply for awards through them. I have to say though that eQSL is cheaper in that regard because you only have to be a bronze member and that only costs $5.00 for one year, where as to get the WAS via LOTW it&#039;s $15.70. 
I guess it&#039;s a more or less a case of &quot;to each their own&quot;. I use both and it&#039;s simple to upload my logs to both as I stated in my article. 

Happy DXing and 73 de AJ4JD,
Tim Bird</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I stumbled across this as I was doing a search on my XYL&#8217;s boyfriend Google. I was surprised to see that my article was good enough for some one else to post it to their blog much less a club blog. Thanks for taking notice. </p>
<p>Allen, I agree with you, I don&#8217;t understand the controversy between the two either. They are both pretty simple to use and both are free until you want to apply for awards through them. I have to say though that eQSL is cheaper in that regard because you only have to be a bronze member and that only costs $5.00 for one year, where as to get the WAS via LOTW it&#8217;s $15.70.<br />
I guess it&#8217;s a more or less a case of &#8220;to each their own&#8221;. I use both and it&#8217;s simple to upload my logs to both as I stated in my article. </p>
<p>Happy DXing and 73 de AJ4JD,<br />
Tim Bird</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allen Yudichak</title>
		<link>http://w3sgj.org/blog/2009/11/03/lotw-vs-eqsl/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>Allen Yudichak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://w3sgj.org/blog/?p=151#comment-27</guid>
		<description>Nice write up.  I am new to HF but I don&#039;t get the controversy one can use both as I plan to.  I like the convience of eqsl but will send paper and upload logs to LoTW as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice write up.  I am new to HF but I don&#8217;t get the controversy one can use both as I plan to.  I like the convience of eqsl but will send paper and upload logs to LoTW as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
