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 understanding about the rules. Anyone know if my word of 3B7/St.Brandon status is correct or not? 73, de Yosi JA3AAW [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.page.sannet.ne.jp/ja3aaw/ At 22:18 +900, 2006/06/15, you wrote: 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/Agalega; 3B7 is about 380Km north-east far from 3B8, and 3B6 is about 710Km north-west far from 3B7. (from Microsoft World Atlas CD-ROM) Then, 3B6 will be separated entity from 3B7. // snip // I guess there are not so hard to work from JA, but very tough from North America. 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
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? 73, de Yosi JA3AAW [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.page.sannet.ne.jp/ja3aaw/ At 22:18 +900, 2006/06/15, you wrote: 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/Agalega; 3B7 is about 380Km north-east far from 3B8, and 3B6 is about 710Km north-west far from 3B7. (from Microsoft World Atlas CD-ROM) Then, 3B6 will be separated entity from 3B7. // snip // I guess there are not so hard to work from JA, but very tough from North America. 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
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, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Cc: Zack Widup [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:00 PM 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 understanding about the rules. Anyone know if my word of 3B7/St.Brandon status is correct or not? 73, de Yosi JA3AAW [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.page.sannet.ne.jp/ja3aaw/ At 22:18 +900, 2006/06/15, you wrote: 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/Agalega; 3B7 is about 380Km north-east far from 3B8, and 3B6 is about 710Km north-west far from 3B7. (from Microsoft World Atlas CD-ROM) Then, 3B6 will be separated entity from 3B7. // snip // I guess there are not so hard to work from JA, but very tough from North America. 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
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' criteria of this subsection, an Entity must be listed on either (a) the US Department of State's list of 'Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty' as having a local 'Administrative Center,' or (b) the United Nations' list of 'Non-Self-Governing Territories.' -- endquote -- 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? 73 - Jim AD1C -- 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 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
RE: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
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 either 3B7 or 3B8 and is considered part of the nearest entity (3B7). Neither Agalega or St. Brandon is listed on the US Department of State Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty list. If St. Brandon was listed, it would qualify as a Political Entity and Agalega would then be eligible based on separation of more than 350 km. If Agalega was included on the Dept. of State list, it would qualify for inclusion as a political entity. 73, ... Joe, W4TV -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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 understanding about the rules. Anyone know if my word of 3B7/St.Brandon status is correct or not? 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
--- 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 is a Point 2 country (Parent = 3B8) by virtue of: i) The island is separated from its Parent, and any other islands that make up the DXCC Entity that contains the Parent, by 350 kilometers or more. Measurement of islands in a group begins with measurement from the island containing the capital city. Only one Entity of this type may be attached to any Parent. ii) The island is separated from its Parent by 350 kilometers or more, and from any other island attached to that Parent in the same or a different island group by 800 kilometers or more. Neither Agalega nor St. Brandon is mentioned on either of the two lists cited in the rule change, so neither can become a Point 1 country, which is necessary for the other one to become a Point 2 country. 73 - Jim AD1C -- 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 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
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 from its parent. To satisfy the 'permanent population' and 'administered by a local government' criteria of this subsection, an Entity must be listed on either (a) the US Department of State's list of 'Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty' as having a local 'Administrative Center,' or (b) the United Nations' list of 'Non-Self-Governing Territories.' -- endquote -- 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? 73 - Jim AD1C -- 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 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
--- 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 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
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 / 4U1VIC, etc); probably Scarborough Pimple would fit into that category as well. Personally, I love the challenge of having some hard-to-work places out there, but it really should be equitable across the board--not one set of rules for old-timers' sake and one for everyone else. I've NEVER been a fan of grandfathering anything to anybody. This new rule probably makes sense in that it recognizes essentially self governing indigenous populations. However, DXCC needs to be rationalized ... the list needs to be cleaned and entities that do not qualify based on the current rules should be removed. The criteria for entity status need to be further tightened: 1) any entity that does not have a permanent, indigenous (non- military) population should not be a country. 2) any territory that is privately owned, e.g., Swain's Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island, Palmyra, etc. should not be eligible for country status 3) any territory that controls access beyond normal, sovereign (passport and visa) entry requirements should not be eligible. 4) any entity subject to jurisdictional dispute (e.g. the Spratley Islands) should not be eligible for inclusion until sovereignty has been settled by the World Court or UN. Yes, I realize it will reduce the number of entities ... I'll lose far more than I would gain. However, this will return DXCC much closer to the original idea of the program. DXCC was never intended to encourage amateurs to take the extraordinarily high risk involved in landing and operating on a 10 sq meter rock in the middle of a reef or hitting the beach in a war zone. 73, ... Joe, W4TV 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
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 entries worked would be OK too, but it would be a many-way tie. A good number of people have worked 'em all. I think it's worth recognizing people who have managed to be DXers long enough to have a bunch of deleted ones that keep them at the top of the honor roll. Same with recognizing people who got through to BS7 when it has been on. This is not a playing field that needs leveled. If it were to be, you wouldn't get to be at the top, you'd get to be tied with all the other people who wanted all of the impossible-to-work-today entities excised from the tally. 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 http://njdxa.org
RE: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
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: '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 / 4U1VIC, etc); probably Scarborough Pimple would fit into that category as well. Personally, I love the challenge of having some hard-to-work places out there, but it really should be equitable across the board--not one set of rules for old-timers' sake and one for everyone else. I've NEVER been a fan of grandfathering anything to anybody. This new rule probably makes sense in that it recognizes essentially self governing indigenous populations. However, DXCC needs to be rationalized ... the list needs to be cleaned and entities that do not qualify based on the current rules should be removed. The criteria for entity status need to be further tightened: 1) any entity that does not have a permanent, indigenous (non- military) population should not be a country. 2) any territory that is privately owned, e.g., Swain's Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island, Palmyra, etc. should not be eligible for country status 3) any territory that controls access beyond normal, sovereign (passport and visa) entry requirements should not be eligible. 4) any entity subject to jurisdictional dispute (e.g. the Spratley Islands) should not be eligible for inclusion until sovereignty has been settled by the World Court or UN. Yes, I realize it will reduce the number of entities ... I'll lose far more than I would gain. However, this will return DXCC much closer to the original idea of the program. DXCC was never intended to encourage amateurs to take the extraordinarily high risk involved in landing and operating on a 10 sq meter rock in the middle of a reef or hitting the beach in a war zone. 73, ... Joe, W4TV 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
RE: [DX-CHAT] new rule??
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 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: '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 / 4U1VIC, etc); probably Scarborough Pimple would fit into that category as well. Personally, I love the challenge of having some hard-to-work places out there, but it really should be equitable across the board--not one set of rules for old-timers' sake and one for everyone else. I've NEVER been a fan of grandfathering anything to anybody. This new rule probably makes sense in that it recognizes essentially self governing indigenous populations. However, DXCC needs to be rationalized ... the list needs to be cleaned and entities that do not qualify based on the current rules should be removed. The criteria for entity status need to be further tightened: 1) any entity that does not have a permanent, indigenous (non- military) population should not be a country. 2) any territory that is privately owned, e.g., Swain's Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island, Palmyra, etc. should not be eligible for country status 3) any territory that controls access beyond normal, sovereign (passport and visa) entry requirements should not be eligible. 4) any entity subject to jurisdictional dispute (e.g. the Spratley Islands) should not be eligible for inclusion until sovereignty has been settled by the World Court or UN. Yes, I realize it will reduce the number of entities ... I'll lose far more than I would gain. However, this will return DXCC much closer to the original idea of the program. DXCC was never intended to encourage amateurs to take the extraordinarily high risk involved in landing and operating on a 10 sq meter rock in the middle of a reef or hitting the beach in a war zone. 73, ... Joe, W4TV 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 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
[DX-CHAT] entities
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 reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
