interesting to think
about!
73
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter
Dougherty
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:32 AM
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
At 06:59 AM 05/10/2007, Bernie McClenny, W3UR wrote:
Back
possibly 40 or more. But if you think about the
ramifications if something ever did turn up...
73
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mome Z32ZM
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:42 AM
To: DX Chat
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
OC Ron
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
Well Mome, the point I was trying to make was that any effort to re-do the
DXCC list -- something that I do NOT personally advocate, by the way -- over
from scratch will create just as much controversy as retaining the current
list; and possibly
It makes me wonder if the ARRL would be liable is someone was seriously
injured or killed by trying to put this land mass on the air. A place
where the only shelter you can put up is an umbrella should be deleted.
Maybe there should be a minimum land mass requirement in the dxcc rules?
73 Jay
At 01:39 AM 5/10/2007, you wrote:
Oh please
Not everyone wants a rubber padded room world, where everything is safe and
risk free. If you don't wish to go, then don't, but don't remove the
excitement of doing something difficult for the rest of the world, just
because YOU think it's the
HS0ZCW, who sometimes operates as K4VUD said Maybe it is time to re-think
the DXCC status of this place?
This would set a terrible precedence! We must follow the DXCC rules
otherwise we will destroy the very fabric of the integrity of the DXCC
program. If we do as Charles suggests for BS7H what
:Re: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], dx-chat@njdxa.org
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 01:39 AM 5/10/2007, you wrote:
Oh please
Not everyone wants a rubber padded room world, where everything is safe and
risk free. If you don't wish to go
John,
Exactly! I am in 100% agreement with you.
A few Holy Grails scattered about the world is a good
thing. It won't take long for someone or some group to come
along and step up to the challenge! Money holds most back,
but it is MY personal opinion, that if the monetary hurdle
were not
Good Morning Bernie All:
After seeing the video from 1997 I too questioned whether BS7 should
be on the list. My conclusion is that it should never have been a new
entity(don't ask me why, I don't have a good answer). However, now
that it is on the list I do not believe it should be
If you delete BS7 based on danger, then you need to look at all the other
entities that are not safe. Peter I, South Sandwich, Baghdad, Los Angeles,
VU4 (Tsunami Danger).
See where this is headed?
Don
N1DG
At 07:58 AM 5/10/2007, Mike(W5UC) Kathy(K5MWH) wrote:
Good Morning Bernie All:
: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
If you delete BS7 based on danger, then you need to look at all the other
entities that are not safe. Peter I, South Sandwich, Baghdad, Los
Angeles, VU4 (Tsunami Danger).
See where this is headed?
Don
N1DG
At 07:58 AM 5/10/2007
At 06:59 AM 05/10/2007, Bernie McClenny, W3UR wrote:
Back to the one and only way to remove a current counter from the DXCC list.
The only way is if the said entity no longer meets the criteria in which put
it on the list to begin with. Rules that are made up afterwards do not
affect its
interesting to think
about!
73
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter
Dougherty
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:32 AM
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
At 06:59 AM 05/10/2007, Bernie McClenny, W3UR wrote:
Back to the one
13 matches
Mail list logo
