Well, here's the thing: As I recall (Bernie et al correct me if I'm wrong), there was a lot of discussion about what to do about "countries" and the very beginning of what became the DXCC 2000 rewrite. And there was a school of thought that strongly suggested starting everyone over on 1 Jan 2000 with a clean slate, and along with that, a refreshed list of "countries" (we hadn't switched to calling them "entities" yet... I think)
And please, no brickbats, I was NOT a member of that small but vocal group that thought this! But, just for fits and giggles... imagine doing just that. Convince some other group to sponsor a DXCC-like award, for contacts starting 1 Jan 2000 (even though the 21st century actually started 1 Jan 2001, but let's not go into THAT one again either), and for this hypothetical award -- call it "DX 21" for the sake of argument -- issue a new list of entities, based on the current DXCC active list (forget the deleteds), but applying current criteria to each and every one of them, plus evaluating other possibile ones that have been eliminated under recent rules changes. Many won't survive. BS7H certainly wouldn't. What about Scotland, Wales, and the rest of the non-England parts of the UK? Desecheo? Navassa? Sable? Ducie? What about the "special" cases: The Spratley's? Do you keep the UN Hq? If so, what about the Council of Europe HQ? The Vatican? SMOM? ITU Hq? How about the UN Vienna? I could go on, but you get my drift. Either way for many of these, stay or go... at least apply the new "DX 21" rules consistently. How will this affect DX chasing? To say nothing of little discussions like this thread... I can understand all too well why no one wanted to undertake the controversy that a change like this would have entailed. But it's 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 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 status. Remember BS7H was added to the list back in the mid 90s. >Then afterwards in an effort to not have any others added to the list like >Scarborough Reef the "100 meter high tide" rule was added. Believe me you >don't want to remove anything off the DXCC list, unless it does not meet the >criteria. I don't think there's a solution to this that will please everybody. I'd personally like to see the rules overhauled completely at some point down the road, but how that could be accomplished I really don't know. I'm not in favour of creating new ones by rule changes, nor deleting/removing old ones by fiat either, but the mish-mash that exists now is somewhat bizarre and could use a revamp at some point. I'm definitely not in favour of mollycoddling DXers and DXpeditioners by removing tough- or dangerous-to-activate entities just because they're tough or dangerous to activate. Free will is truly a wonderful concept. Cheers, Peter, W2IRT 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 reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org 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 reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
