Ron,
> You and only you, to my knowledge, is claiming a lesser calculation
> (799.6 km& change) according to the WGS84 "spherical" calculation,
> which has never before been used. You and only you are demanding
> that the DXCC use this allegedly more precise calculation.
Other ARRL awards, specifically VUCC require the use of WGS84 so it
is only logical that the more accurate standard be applied to DXCC.
DXCC rules have traditionally applied a standard that the requirements
must be met *unambiguously* and WGS84 certainly shows ambiguity if
nothing else.
> With all due respect Joe, since the DXCC Desk has not announced their
> reasoning, it is premature at best to start railing at them for
> "thumbing their noses at the DXCC rules."
It's certainly not premature ... the DXCC Desk has had months to
announce what they would do and under what circumstances they would
do it. There are at least a half dozen expeditions in the field
right now ... some of which are redundant even under the current
decision. The rules are clear, everyone knew this day has been
coming for more than a year although nobody knew that everything
would finally fall into place until a couple months ago. The
whole process should have been conducted in the daylight with
plenty of time to review the decision tree and confirm the facts.
> Your outrage and point that you vehemently disagree with the
> decision, even though you haven't heard the reasoning behind it
> yet, is duly noted.
It's not just me although I'm being the most vocal. I have received
several e-mails from former DXCC staff and DXAC members saying that
the decisions in the current matter are just plain wrong and fly in
the face of the rules on several points.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 10/13/2010 8:44 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
(Discussion moved to DX Chat as per NJDXA reflector rules)
With all due respect Joe, since the DXCC Desk has not announced their
reasoning, it is premature at best to start railing at them for "thumbing
their noses at the DXCC rules."
Distance is not the only criteria involved.
And for that matter, you yourself admitted on the CQ Contest reflector that
the Great Circle distance between the closest points on Bonaire and Saba was
801 km& change. That IS the criteria that has been used for distance in
the recent past, and it IS (barely) more than enough.
You and only you, to my knowledge, is claiming a lesser calculation (799.6
km& change) according to the WGS84 "spherical" calculation, which has never
before been used. You and only you are demanding that the DXCC use this
allegedly more precise calculation.
Come to think of it, you have been setting yourself up to gripe about this
for weeks if not months. I do believe you made more than a few
announcements on CQ Contest that if the DXCC Desk did not do as you
demanded, you were going to raise holy heck. Well, they didn't, and sure
enough, here you are.
And I don't want another Baldwin's Reef, or another Romeo or Dr. Don Miller
type operation, anymore than anyone else. Comparing this decision, a
decision that we all knew for years was eventually coming, to those is
hyperbole that goes way over the top.
Your outrage and point that you vehemently disagree with the decision, even
though you haven't heard the reasoning behind it yet, is duly noted.
Now why don't we wait and see what the reasoning is before you tar and
feather everyone who disagrees with you?
73
-----Original Message-----
From: kf...@njdxa.org [mailto:kf...@njdxa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:00 PM
To: dx-n...@njdxa.org
Subject: [DX-NEWS] Unbelievable!
The DXCC Desk have chosen to thumb their noses at the DXCC rules
and announced four (4) "new ones" effective 10/10/10. See:
<http://www.arrl.org/news/dissolution-of-netherlands-antilles-creates-four-n
ew-dxcc-entities>
Since the rules no longer seem to apply, what will be the next
"Baldwin's Reef"? Will we see more out of country operations
like those of Romeo and Don Miller?
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 10/12/2010 3:07 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
Well, it's official, the Department of State has only listed
St. Maarten and Curacao as "Dependencies and Areas of Special
Sovereignty."
Since the separation between Bonaire and Saba is less than the
required 800 km when calculated using the more accurate WGS84
standard, the BES Islands *should* qualify as a *one* entity.
The "bed has been made" ... if ARRL follow the rules, there
will be *three* "new ones." We'll see how important the rules
are.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
-----------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to
imail...@njdxa.org
In the message body put either
unsubscribe dx-news
or
subscribe dx-news
This is the DX-NEWS reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or subscribe to this list. Please send a message to
imail...@njdxa.org
In the message body put either
unsubscribe dx-chat
or
subscribe dx-chat
This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
