So just delete them from the list and we dont have to worry or argue
about them anymore
:-) Tom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To answer your question, the 4 rocks (part of a 16 kms long atoll) of
Scarborough Reef (which you can find back on all important maps) qualified to
the DXCC rules at that
To answer your question, the 4 rocks (part of a 16 kms long atoll) of
Scarborough Reef (which you can find back on all important maps) qualified to
the DXCC rules at that time (beginning nineties). Since then the rules have
been changed. See DXCC-rules under 'Definitions': Island.
At this time Scar
TED]>, dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
This is great. Any idea when it will be activated ?
Rod WC7N
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Zimmerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
The r
x27;t let us on Desecheo or Navassa...
73
From: WC7N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri Jun 16 14:41:59 CDT 2006
To: Dan Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
This is great. Any idea when it will be activated ?
Rod WC7N
- Original Message
This is great. Any idea when it will be activated ?
Rod WC7N
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Zimmerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
The rarest entity in the worked all phone booths:
http://www.
Why didn't I get the QSL first if I was a contributor?
Rob, HK3CW
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Coomler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
And I'm still waiting for my QSL. D***!!
Bob, W6RJ
> list?
>
> 73
>
> From: Dan Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri Jun 16 13:48:49 CDT 2006
> To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
> Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
>
> The rarest entity in the worked all phone booths:
>
> http://www.deuceofclubs.com/moj/moj
According to the web page, sadly, the Mojave Phone Booth was removed and
destroyed by PacBell circa 2000.
I guess this puts it on the Deleted Phone Booths list?
73
From: Dan Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri Jun 16 13:48:49 CDT 2006
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] ne
The idea that a rock is a country makes a LOT of sense to the country that owns it. You get the undersea oil rights for a radius of 100 miles or some such...
Don N7EF
-- Original message from Tom Wylie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- > Oh, I care passionately about workin
The rarest entity in the worked all phone booths:
http://www.deuceofclubs.com/moj/mojave.htm
73,
Dan
N3OX
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
Wylie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mike(W5UC) & Kathy(K5MWH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Joe Subich, W4TV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Peter W2IRT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "dx-chat List"
Sent: Friday, June 16
I think it has happened more than once, in the history of DXCC, that
someone found a new place they thought would qualify as a new country by
the existing rules and also thought they could get there first, so they
pushed to have that new country established on the list and then went and
operat
Oh, I care passionately about working them all, especially as I have
only TWO to get. My initial point, appears to have been missed, that "
how can a rock sticking out of the Ocean a few feet ever be classified
as a Country or Entity?" It just makes the whole thing stupid, like
working ligh
DXCC has always been a mix of real countries and remote islands and land
strips, also in the good old days (I remember exotic places like Minerva Reef,
Serrana Bank, Desroches, Farquhar etc etc, most of them valid from the start
of DXCC and deleted in the 70/80's). So DXCC does and did NOT mean DX
At 09:23 PM 6/15/2006 -0700, Richard Diddams wrote:
Sooo, who really cares about working them
all?
ME. Yes, all of the things you mention can be accomplished in a
short time, but others in the pursuit of DXCC can not, and that is still
what makes it worth the effort to try. Yes, the new NOW g
m Wylie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Joe Subich, W4TV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Peter W2IRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; dx-chat List
Date: 6/15/2006 2:23:09 PM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
Here we go again.All the American big guns have worked everything -
so now we have to invent mo
: Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:45 PM
To: DX-Chat
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] New Rule??
Ditto Dan ! The dedicated DX'er dosen't want "a playing field that needs
leveled" !
Otherwise, what REAL FUN is there in it?
Rod
KA5EJX
Original Message-
I don't see why stay
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
t'
Cc: 'Peter Dougherty'; 'Tom Wylie'
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
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 / 4U
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 entr
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
At 03:23 PM 06/15/2006, Tom Wylie wrote:
Here we go again.All the American big guns have worked
everything - so now we have to invent more entities.
Why dont we go back to the good old days when we worked
Countries? D X C C Remind me what it stands for.
If we want to call them entities
Here we go again.All the American big guns have worked everything -
so now we have to invent more entities.
Why dont we go back to the good old days when we worked Countries? D X
C C Remind me what it stands for.
If we want to call them entities ARRL should start a new award for
WAEn
Bah - humbug - I only need Scarborough Reef!
:-) Tom
Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
--- 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 +978-251-99
--- 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
ht
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
--- 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
t; [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Takeshi Yoshida
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:00 AM
> To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
> Cc: Zack Widup
> Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
>
>
> I think I owe you an apology, because I'm not so good at English
> and I may have wrong
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' cr
" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
Hi Yosi!
I don't think that St Brandon is administered by a local government!
73/DX de Osten SM5DQC[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Takeshi Yoshida"
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?
>
> ---
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]>, <[EM
It depends on where you live in the USA. That is not a polar path from
here.
I've worked 3B8CF with less than a watt and never had any trouble working
other stations in that area.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Takeshi Yoshida wrote:
>
> Among 3B8/Mauritius, 3B7/St.Brandon and 3B6/Agal
I remain ready for the ICE BERG as a DXCC entity.. lets make more and
more. how about each of the 50 USA states... like soviet
union???
More, more moore, more more more.yea ,,,73
Charles Harpole
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
http://njdx
At 07:43 +0900, 2006/06/15, Harris_Ruben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I guess this means I don't need Scarborough reef.
>
>And "you" don't need Navassa, PeterI, Desecheo and a bunch more???
>
>http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/06/14/100/
I'm not good at geography and have no idea how many ne
> Although I'm quite good at Geography, I don't have the foggiest
> what will become a candidate, however. Any guesses out there?
> One other reflector I'm a member of suggested Swain's Reef
> (supposedly out near Saipan).
Looking over the Department of State list, it appears that American
S
At 06:43 PM 06/14/2006, harris_ruben wrote:
I guess this means I don't need
Scarborough reef.
And "you" don't need Navassa, PeterI, Desecheo and a bunch
more???
Not likely either way. What it will do, probably, is allow a few more to
be created. Could you imagine the furore that would result if P
Title: new rule??
I guess this means I don't need Scarborough reef.
And "you" don't need Navassa, PeterI, Desecheo and a
bunch more???
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/06/14/100/
--
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a
large
number of electrons were terribly
in
38 matches
Mail list logo
