In article ujT_c.2793$x12.561@trnddc05,
"Honus" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Honus wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

snip

You're lucky at the moment, but like all list loggers, someday
you'll really screw up, they all do. If you've been in the
hobby for almost 40 years, surely you'd be aware of that.

Just what exactly is a list logger?

A list logger, in hobby parlance, is one who takes a published
frequency/station list, tunes his radio to said frequency at said
time, and then says 'I heard station 'xyz' at 2100 on frequency
xxx', however, the individual may have never heard an ID or
anything that would actually indicate that is indeed station
'xyz'.Their 'logging' is only as reliable (or unreliable) as the
list. Now, the list may or may not be correct, and the station
heard may not actually be the station on the list.

Ah. I thought as much. Is there any way of getting a sure station ID
other than on air identification, or perhaps simultaneous webcasts?
(Or the speaker identifying himself as Brother Stair.) It seems to me
that anything else would fall under the "presumptive" category.

I'm trying to be pretty picky about what I log. I'm doing this with
my 9 year old daughter...we stick pins in a map on the wall marking
the location of the transmitters that we're receiving from. It's not
as fun if we only "think" that such and such a program came from such
and such a place. I just don't get why people would even bother list
logging; it defeats the whole purpose, in my view.

I'm a list lager, myself. If I drink too much beer, I tend to tilt to
one side.

I sure there are plenty of methods you can use to figure it out such as
noting when a suspect station is broadcasting on more than one
frequency. This is where having more than one radio really comes in
handy. Looking up the programming content on the Internet would be
another. Drinking coffee instead of beer would be another.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California