Re: [DX-CHAT] i.d. Leno cw ops?
Charles, It was Chip Margelli (from Vertex/Standard), K7JA and Ken Miller, K6CTW. 73, Scott, N9AA Charles Harpole wrote: Pse, what are the call signs of the two men who won the CW to cel phone challenge staged by the Jay Leno show? Tnx 73 Charles Harpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Why the new DXCC rule
Just wondering why DXCC changed the rules to seemingly create one new country for JA1BK. I didn't hear anything about rule change discussion until rules were changed. Reminds me of the Okino Torishima situation... 73, Barry -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA 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] Why the new DXCC rule
Barry: Kan has been lobbying the ARRL for some time to make Swain's Island a new one. He ws the behind the first Ducie Island DXpedition that Tom Christian VR6TC led a few years back, even though he wasn't on Ducie, he was the $$$ behind it. Tom, WW5L . Barry wrote: Just wondering why DXCC changed the rules to seemingly create one new country for JA1BK. I didn't hear anything about rule change discussion until rules were changed. Reminds me of the Okino Torishima situation... 73, Barry 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] Why the new DXCC rule
Under the existing DXCC rules (aka DXCC 2000), there was originally a rule that permitted recognizing a new or existing entity if there was an existing IARU society. The purpose of that rule, IMHO, was to keep Hong Kong and Macau on the list once administration of those two territories were turned back over to the People's Republic of China. As it turns out, ironically, Hong Kong and Macau remain pretty much autonomous (although not 100% so), so if that was the purpose of the rule, it was unneccesary. The unintentional side effect was the creation of several new entities by creation of an IARU society -- Ducie for one comes to mind, which followed from the creation of the Pitcairn Is IARU society. Consider that at least one of these IARU groups was created solely to in turn create a DXCC entity, and appear to otherwise be inactive groups (if not total shams). So I for one was not upset when the rule in question was removed. However, as you will recall, the previous KH8SI group was more than a little upset, since they were in the process of trying to set up their American Samoa ARA to be another IARU society... which in and of itself is another story. So now we have another rule change which permits redefinition of certain entities into political entities. Did we need this rule change? I don't know... I never heard any discussion of a rule change either, it was just suddenly announced, and there it was. And almost simultaneously, application is made for Swain's Island to be a new one, it's approved, and here comes the KH8SI team for another go. Coincidence? I have nothing per se against a new entity. It's the process that bothers me. I'm in favor of open discussion and debate. Now I'm not saying that anything wrong was done... but I dislike an appearance of impropriety, and right now, there is (IMHO) such an appearance. In the future, I believe open discussion of rules changes should be undertaken prior to new rules being adopted. 73, ron w3wn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Barry Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 6:42 AM To: Dx-Chat Subject: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule Just wondering why DXCC changed the rules to seemingly create one new country for JA1BK. I didn't hear anything about rule change discussion until rules were changed. Reminds me of the Okino Torishima situation... 73, Barry -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA 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] [dx-list] KH8SI
For those of you like myself waiting for CW I asked him on 40 when, and he said tomorrow night which I think , notice I think, means tonight our time in North America. He also said they did not have the low band antenna's up yet. Rod WC7N 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] Why the new DXCC rule
Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: Coincidence? I have nothing per se against a new entity. It's the process that bothers me. I'm in favor of open discussion and debate. Now I'm not saying that anything wrong was done... but I dislike an appearance of impropriety, and right now, there is (IMHO) such an appearance. In the future, I believe open discussion of rules changes should be undertaken prior to new rules being adopted. 73, ron w3wn C'mon guys. The ARRL leans toward the money. If a group promises donations to the ARRL, then they are very likely to get whatever they want. -- _____ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ John L. Sielke ( W )( 2 )( A )( G )( N ) http://w2agn.net \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ http://www.blurty.com/users/w2agn CRUSTY OLD CURMUDGEON, AND PROUD OF IT (AGN and AGN? are Trademarks of John L. Sielke and may not be used without permission) 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] Why the new DXCC rule
Ron W3WN wrote: The unintentional side effect was the creation of several new entities by creation of an IARU society -- Ducie for one comes to mind, which followed from the creation of the Pitcairn Is IARU society. Consider that at least one of these IARU groups was created solely to in turn create a DXCC entity, and appear to otherwise be inactive groups (if not total shams). So I for one was not upset when the rule in question was removed. I suggested turning Andy ZD9BV, the only active ham on Tristan da Cunah, into an IARU Society. That would have made Tristan a Parent entity, and allowed Gough Is - plenty far enough away - to become a new one. Oh well. Just in case anyone thinks about it, it doesn't seem to work under the new rule, because I discovered that neither Tristan nor Gough have independent administrations. Both are governed via St Helena ZD7. 73, John, NT5C. 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] Why the new DXCC rule
Let's not turn DXCC into another IOTA. Just because many of us have worked them all, or close to it, doesn't mean we should to create new ones using loop holes that were not the intent or spirit of the rules. 73, Barry John Warren wrote: I suggested turning Andy ZD9BV, the only active ham on Tristan da Cunah, into an IARU Society. That would have made Tristan a Parent entity, and allowed Gough Is - plenty far enough away - to become a new one. Oh well. Just in case anyone thinks about it, it doesn't seem to work under the new rule, because I discovered that neither Tristan nor Gough have independent administrations. Both are governed via St Helena ZD7. 73, John, NT5C. 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 -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA 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] Why the new DXCC rule
Creating "New Ones"stimulatesthe ARRL cash flow. Everyone otherwise stagnated, near or at the top,then submits an endorsement and accompanying $$$... Don N7EF -- Original message from Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- Just wondering why DXCC changed the rules to seemingly create one new country for JA1BK. I didn't hear anything about rule change discussion until rules were changed. Reminds me of the Okino Torishima situation... 73, Barry -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA 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] Why the new DXCC rule
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Creating New Ones stimulates the ARRL cash flow. Everyone otherwise stagnated, near or at the top, then submits an endorsement and accompanying $$$... Don N7EF EXACTLY! Plus the donations from Yaecomwood to the DXpeditions of which I'm sure ARRL gets a cut. -- _____ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ John L. Sielke ( W )( 2 )( A )( G )( N ) http://w2agn.net \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ http://www.blurty.com/users/w2agn CRUSTY OLD CURMUDGEON, AND PROUD OF IT (AGN and AGN? are Trademarks of John L. Sielke and may not be used without permission) 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] Why the new DXCC rule
This rule has been discussed many times. At the Visalia DX Convention for example, Wayne Mills talked about it at length before a very large crowd of DXers. He even ask for a show of hands from those who would like to see some new additions to the list. The response was overwhelmingly positive. Rule changes are one reason we have a DX Advisory Committee made up of every day good DXers. The DXAC was in favor of this rule change. Maybe those who are unhappy should contact their DXAC member. Dave - K4SSU - Original Message - From: Ron Notarius W3WN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dx-Chat dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule Under the existing DXCC rules (aka DXCC 2000), there was originally a rule that permitted recognizing a new or existing entity if there was an existing IARU society. The purpose of that rule, IMHO, was to keep Hong Kong and Macau on the list once administration of those two territories were turned back over to the People's Republic of China. As it turns out, ironically, Hong Kong and Macau remain pretty much autonomous (although not 100% so), so if that was the purpose of the rule, it was unneccesary. The unintentional side effect was the creation of several new entities by creation of an IARU society -- Ducie for one comes to mind, which followed from the creation of the Pitcairn Is IARU society. Consider that at least one of these IARU groups was created solely to in turn create a DXCC entity, and appear to otherwise be inactive groups (if not total shams). So I for one was not upset when the rule in question was removed. However, as you will recall, the previous KH8SI group was more than a little upset, since they were in the process of trying to set up their American Samoa ARA to be another IARU society... which in and of itself is another story. So now we have another rule change which permits redefinition of certain entities into political entities. Did we need this rule change? I don't know... I never heard any discussion of a rule change either, it was just suddenly announced, and there it was. And almost simultaneously, application is made for Swain's Island to be a new one, it's approved, and here comes the KH8SI team for another go. Coincidence? I have nothing per se against a new entity. It's the process that bothers me. I'm in favor of open discussion and debate. Now I'm not saying that anything wrong was done... but I dislike an appearance of impropriety, and right now, there is (IMHO) such an appearance. In the future, I believe open discussion of rules changes should be undertaken prior to new rules being adopted. 73, ron w3wn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Barry Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 6:42 AM To: Dx-Chat Subject: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule Just wondering why DXCC changed the rules to seemingly create one new country for JA1BK. I didn't hear anything about rule change discussion until rules were changed. Reminds me of the Okino Torishima situation... 73, Barry -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA 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
Re: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule
On Jul 29, 2006, at 11:38 AM, David Johnson wrote: This rule has been discussed many times. At the Visalia DX Convention for example, Wayne Mills talked about it at length before a very large crowd of DXers. He even ask for a show of hands from those who would like to see some new additions to the list. The response was overwhelmingly positive. Rule changes are one reason we have a DX Advisory Committee made up of every day good DXers. The DXAC was in favor of this rule change. Maybe those who are unhappy should contact their DXAC member. Dave - K4SSU To me, at least, it makes more sense than the IARU society rule. Bob, N7XY 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] Why the new DXCC rule
Oh? I find that interesting. I never saw anything online or in print about it until it happened. Visalia is a very small subset of active DX'ers. So are Dayton attendees for that matter. As far as the DXAC, well, I couldn't tell you the last time I _ever_ heard a peep from the Atlantic Division DXAC rep, and I've been DX'ing for close to 30 years. That is another story. 73 -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 2:38 PM To: Ron Notarius W3WN; Dx-Chat Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule This rule has been discussed many times. At the Visalia DX Convention for example, Wayne Mills talked about it at length before a very large crowd of DXers. He even ask for a show of hands from those who would like to see some new additions to the list. The response was overwhelmingly positive. Rule changes are one reason we have a DX Advisory Committee made up of every day good DXers. The DXAC was in favor of this rule change. Maybe those who are unhappy should contact their DXAC member. Dave - K4SSU - Original Message - From: Ron Notarius W3WN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dx-Chat dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule Under the existing DXCC rules (aka DXCC 2000), there was originally a rule that permitted recognizing a new or existing entity if there was an existing IARU society. The purpose of that rule, IMHO, was to keep Hong Kong and Macau on the list once administration of those two territories were turned back over to the People's Republic of China. As it turns out, ironically, Hong Kong and Macau remain pretty much autonomous (although not 100% so), so if that was the purpose of the rule, it was unneccesary. The unintentional side effect was the creation of several new entities by creation of an IARU society -- Ducie for one comes to mind, which followed from the creation of the Pitcairn Is IARU society. Consider that at least one of these IARU groups was created solely to in turn create a DXCC entity, and appear to otherwise be inactive groups (if not total shams). So I for one was not upset when the rule in question was removed. However, as you will recall, the previous KH8SI group was more than a little upset, since they were in the process of trying to set up their American Samoa ARA to be another IARU society... which in and of itself is another story. So now we have another rule change which permits redefinition of certain entities into political entities. Did we need this rule change? I don't know... I never heard any discussion of a rule change either, it was just suddenly announced, and there it was. And almost simultaneously, application is made for Swain's Island to be a new one, it's approved, and here comes the KH8SI team for another go. Coincidence? I have nothing per se against a new entity. It's the process that bothers me. I'm in favor of open discussion and debate. Now I'm not saying that anything wrong was done... but I dislike an appearance of impropriety, and right now, there is (IMHO) such an appearance. In the future, I believe open discussion of rules changes should be undertaken prior to new rules being adopted. 73, ron w3wn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Barry Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 6:42 AM To: Dx-Chat Subject: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule Just wondering why DXCC changed the rules to seemingly create one new country for JA1BK. I didn't hear anything about rule change discussion until rules were changed. Reminds me of the Okino Torishima situation... 73, Barry -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA 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] YU6DZ rec'd...today..from Montenegro !!
Wow, Recv'd YU6DZ qsl today...I was surprised since it was so quick. Great es it was appreciated...Tnx!! 73 es gd DX, Sherman-K4KU... 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] Why the new DXCC rule
You are lucky guys. Here nothing Only time I heard them was around 0330 to 0400 Z 52 signals but working USA by numbers and on 40 m around 0830 Z under a local ragchew frequency and listening up 7220 so no chance both cases. Maybe next one under better condx !! Fred - PY7ZZ Tony Martin W4FOA escreveu: Well gang, KH8SI is on right this moment (2050Z)..decent signal 14194.95 QRZ for East Coast only..GL Tony, W4FOA - Original Message - From: Ron Notarius W3WN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dx-Chat dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 4:28 PM Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule Oh? I find that interesting. I never saw anything online or in print about it until it happened. Visalia is a very small subset of active DX'ers. So are Dayton attendees for that matter. As far as the DXAC, well, I couldn't tell you the last time I _ever_ heard a peep from the Atlantic Division DXAC rep, and I've been DX'ing for close to 30 years. That is another story. 73 -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 2:38 PM To: Ron Notarius W3WN; Dx-Chat Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule This rule has been discussed many times. At the Visalia DX Convention for example, Wayne Mills talked about it at length before a very large crowd of DXers. He even ask for a show of hands from those who would like to see some new additions to the list. The response was overwhelmingly positive. Rule changes are one reason we have a DX Advisory Committee made up of every day good DXers. The DXAC was in favor of this rule change. Maybe those who are unhappy should contact their DXAC member. Dave - K4SSU - Original Message - From: Ron Notarius W3WN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dx-Chat dx-chat@njdxa.org Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule Under the existing DXCC rules (aka DXCC 2000), there was originally a rule that permitted recognizing a new or existing entity if there was an existing IARU society. The purpose of that rule, IMHO, was to keep Hong Kong and Macau on the list once administration of those two territories were turned back over to the People's Republic of China. As it turns out, ironically, Hong Kong and Macau remain pretty much autonomous (although not 100% so), so if that was the purpose of the rule, it was unneccesary. The unintentional side effect was the creation of several new entities by creation of an IARU society -- Ducie for one comes to mind, which followed from the creation of the Pitcairn Is IARU society. Consider that at least one of these IARU groups was created solely to in turn create a DXCC entity, and appear to otherwise be inactive groups (if not total shams). So I for one was not upset when the rule in question was removed. However, as you will recall, the previous KH8SI group was more than a little upset, since they were in the process of trying to set up their American Samoa ARA to be another IARU society... which in and of itself is another story. So now we have another rule change which permits redefinition of certain entities into political entities. Did we need this rule change? I don't know... I never heard any discussion of a rule change either, it was just suddenly announced, and there it was. And almost simultaneously, application is made for Swain's Island to be a new one, it's approved, and here comes the KH8SI team for another go. Coincidence? I have nothing per se against a new entity. It's the process that bothers me. I'm in favor of open discussion and debate. Now I'm not saying that anything wrong was done... but I dislike an appearance of impropriety, and right now, there is (IMHO) such an appearance. In the future, I believe open discussion of rules changes should be undertaken prior to new rules being adopted. 73, ron w3wn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Barry Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 6:42 AM To: Dx-Chat Subject: [DX-CHAT] Why the new DXCC rule Just wondering why DXCC changed the rules to seemingly create one new country for JA1BK. I didn't hear anything about rule change discussion until rules were changed. Reminds me of the Okino Torishima situation... 73, Barry -- Barry Kutner, W2UP Newtown, PA 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] KH8SI - how long?
I'm away from the shack so I REALLY have no chance of working 'em. I've hunted the web, but can't find how long they expect to be there (3 days or so??) Who's go the skinny on this trip? N2ERN -- No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. 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
