I think I owe you an apology, because I'm not so good at English
and I may have wrong understanding about the rules.
Anyone know if my word of 3B7/St.Brandon status is correct or not?
73, de Yosi JA3AAW [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sorry, it's NOT 3B7/St.Brandon but 3B6/Agalega.
At 00:00 +0900, 2006/06/16, JA3AAW wrote:
I think I owe you an apology, because I'm not so good at English
and I may have wrong understanding about the rules.
Anyone know if my word of 3B7/St.Brandon status is correct or not?
Dear Yosi
I don't think any of them (Agalega and St. Brandon) has
an Administrative Center, which is required!
73/DX de Osten SM5DQC[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Osten B Magnusson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Takeshi Yoshida [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15,
Quoting from ARRL:
-- quote --
The new text at Section II, Paragraph 1(c) shall read: The Entity contains a
permanent population, is administered by a local government and is located at
least 800 km from its parent. To satisfy the 'permanent population' and
'administered by a local government'
Yoshi,
It would appear that Mauritius (3B8) is the Political Entity
(point 1). Because St. Brandon (3B7) is more than 350 km from
3B8 it qualifies as a separate entity under point 2 (separation).
However, since Agalega (3B6) is not 800 km from 3B7, it does not
qualify as separate from
--- Jim Reisert AD1C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see 3B8/Mauritius on either of these two
lists. What status change makes you think that 3B7/St. Brandon could become
a new entity?
Let me clarify...
Mauritius is a Point 1 country (political entity).
3B6/3B7
Does this mean we loose Scarborough Reef and other stupid rocks
tom
Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
Quoting from ARRL:
-- quote --
The new text at Section II, Paragraph 1(c) shall read: The Entity contains a
permanent population, is administered by a local government and is located at
least 800 km
--- Tom Wylie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean we loose [sic] Scarborough Reef and other stupid rocks
No.
--
Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA +978-251-9933, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.ad1c.us
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
Peter wrote:
Personally, I wish they'd re-write the DXCC criteria entirely to get
rid of stuff which, if proposed today, wouldn't qualify (the
4U1UN/ITU versus 4U1WB / 4U1VIC, etc); probably Scarborough Pimple
would fit into that category as well. Personally, I love the
challenge of
I don't see why staying alive for a long time and being at the helm of
a station that absolutely could get through to every active entity
ever shouldn't put you at the top of the honor roll.
You've worked the most entities, you get to be at the top.
That said, a subcategory for most current
Joe, from what I have read thus far. You make the most sense. How can a
piece of rock be a country, come on folks!
Roland, NA5Q
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:25 PM
To: 'dx-chat List'
Cc:
That's why they now call them entities instead of countries
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
Of Roland Guidry
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:18 PM
To: 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'dx-chat List'
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
Joe, from what I have
Sounds like a case of sour grapes from the GMto bad.
vy 73,
Nick W9UM
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
http://njdxa.org/dx-chat
To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org
This is the DX-CHAT
13 matches
Mail list logo
