Re: [DX-CHAT] Those scaffolds

[Mark Robinson]

You wouldn't want the foam to float away.

Mark N1UK


- Original Message - 
From: "Gary Danaher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, 10 May, 2007 10:52 PM
Subject: [DX-CHAT] Those scaffolds


Nobody else has mentioned this so I feel the need. How did those guys 
get those platforms erected so quickly? They appear to be quite sturdy. 
Wonder if they borrowed somebody's back yard, had a dump truck full of 
rocks dropped off, and practiced doing this a few times. Ya' know this 
wasn't very easy, even if they were able to wade hip deep next to the 
rocks. If somebody could get the actual dimensions and forms of the 
rocks, the next trip out they could have foam-fitted platforms to just 
drop over the rock and start working! Ah, the dream


Gary
AB5RM


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] Just Info Tnx

[Pri Handoyo]

Hello Guys,
   
  Five ORARI members: Pri, YB0ECT; Dudy, YB0DPO; Jo, YC0LOW, Andry YB1TX  and 
Ray, YD0NQW will be participating in CQWW CW Contest 2007 in May 26-27th 
from Ayer Island in Jakarta Bay, on 40m, 80m and 160m bands, category Single
Operator. IOTA reference for Ayer Island is OC-177 which is very seldom
activated for IOTA chaser. For this, they will also try to transmit in
RTTY and PSK31 modes on high bands. They will be using home-callsigns
with additional specific designator "/0", example: YB0ECT/0. Please 
send QSL cards to Orari Bureau and/or direct, not via QSL Managers.

  Thank you.
   
  73 dx,
  de Pri, YB0ECT

 
-
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

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] Those scaffolds

[Gary Danaher]

Nobody else has mentioned this so I feel the need. How did those guys 
get those platforms erected so quickly? They appear to be quite sturdy. 
Wonder if they borrowed somebody's back yard, had a dump truck full of 
rocks dropped off, and practiced doing this a few times. Ya' know this 
wasn't very easy, even if they were able to wade hip deep next to the 
rocks. If somebody could get the actual dimensions and forms of the 
rocks, the next trip out they could have foam-fitted platforms to just 
drop over the rock and start working! Ah, the dream


Gary
AB5RM


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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Zack Widup]

Yep - it's the Worldradio Worked-100-Nations (W-100-N) award.  The 
original award rules required that you not only work work stations in 
inhabited countries, but that you work citizens of those countries (not 
visitors).  They were relaxed a bit so you can work a visitor who has a 
non-portable callsign in that country. E.g. A22MN or 7P8SR would count but 
not V5/W9SZ (just using that last as an example, I've never been there).

It's an interesting award.  It is not endorsable but you can apply for a 
specific band/mode in your application if you wish (all 40 CW or all 15 
SSB etc.) You don't have to send cards in but you have to send the QSO 
information plus a statement signed by two other hams that they observed 
the cards for the necessary 100 countries confirmed.

It isn't as easy as you'd think!

73, Zack W9SZ

On Thu, 10 May 2007, Dan Zimmerman N3OX wrote:

> Why do you feel that each entity should have a permanent population?
> Why not start a seperate award for that instead?
> 
> In fact, I bet there already is one.
> 
> Dan
> 



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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

Sounds like WorldRadio's Worked 100 Nations award.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dan Zimmerman
N3OX
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:45 PM
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)


Why do you feel that each entity should have a permanent population?
Why not start a seperate award for that instead?

In fact, I bet there already is one.

Dan


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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Dan Zimmerman N3OX]

Why do you feel that each entity should have a permanent population?
Why not start a seperate award for that instead?

In fact, I bet there already is one.

Dan


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] BS7H thoughts

[N4BAA - Jose Castillo]

NOT practical and is totally out of the question.
The current rules make DXCC a CHALLENGE...not a "GIVEN"!!!

On that note...we have several here associated with a "DX" 
club and they believe in pumping their chest over #1 honor 
roll.  #1 HR is obtainable by MANY hams as long as they live 
long enough AND the NEEDED entities are "ACTIVATED"...


Many needing that last onedid NOT get it!! But THIS 
DXPedition was NOT about eradicating the need for BS7 for 
everyone it was meant to put a very much needed entity 
on the air for a less than majority group.  For the most 
part, ANY ham who has a radio and a yagi at some height can 
work them all GIVEN enough timewhen there is a 
DXpedition like PETER ONE who is on for so long they call CQ 
endlessly without answer...SURE!!! EVERYONE can work them...


When an entity comes on like BS7 for a relatively SHORT 
period.FORGET ABOUT IT! I think it would be 
interesting to know how many stations (IF ANY) in 3 or 4 
land worked them without an AMP?  I know many who called for 
days on end without one, only to end up coming over here to 
work them.


No mal intent implied or suggestedbut the next time a 
BS7 comes on.I bet you there will be more amps fired up 
on the east coastIF NOTHING ELSE...it sure helps the HAM 
RADIO ECONOMY by having hams run out and purchase amps and 
YAGIS


VIVA LA QRO!!!

Jose - N4BAA



Charles Gallo wrote:


On 5/10/2007 Bernie McClenny, W3UR wrote:


HS0ZCW, who sometimes operates as K4VUD said "Maybe it is time to re-think
the DXCC status of this place?"




I actually have read the rules - and I think they are rather silly - I follow them, but, if I was running the  program, I'd add one simple one 


The entity must have a permanent human population - defined as having been 
continuously populated for more 6 months - after 6 months of no one living 
there, they are removed

Yeah - I know it would remove a LOT of entities from the list, but 

--  
73 de KG2V


For the Children - RKBA!

A rose by any other name would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault vegetation."



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] BS7H thoughts

[Charles Gallo]

On 5/10/2007 Bernie McClenny, W3UR wrote:

> HS0ZCW, who sometimes operates as K4VUD said "Maybe it is time to re-think
> the DXCC status of this place?"



I actually have read the rules - and I think they are rather silly - I follow 
them, but, if I was running the  program, I'd add one simple one 

The entity must have a permanent human population - defined as having been 
continuously populated for more 6 months - after 6 months of no one living 
there, they are removed

Yeah - I know it would remove a LOT of entities from the list, but 

--  
73 de KG2V

For the Children - RKBA!

A rose by any other name would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault vegetation."



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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Dan Zimmerman N3OX]

Well, then maybe you should petition for an "operating table and
chair" clause to be added to the DXCC rules.

Then anyone who just wants to string their dipole in the palm trees
and lounge in the sand with their head up on a log with their K2 on
their belly doesn't count for DXCC.

Or all you'd have to do in Scarborough reef would be to build a
special table and chair with funny legs to conform directly to the
coral rather than using a conventional table and chair and a platform.

Every set of objective rules is going to allow some very weird
entities to exist.  Every addition of a rule is going to make
following the rules more complicated (What size do the table and chair
have to be?  Ikea sells some pretty small stuff.)

BS7H will and should stay.  It's been activated a couple of times.  It
does consist of islands.  Aves Island YV0 has plenty of room to set up
a table and chair but is equally ridiculous from a barren-island
standpoint.  It's all in good fun, as far as I'm concerned.

Gives a bunch of people a chance to figure out how to build and
operate a station under the most extreme conditions imaginable...
what's wrong with that?

Dan


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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Mike(W5UC) & Kathy(K5MWH)]

At 03:45 PM 5/10/2007, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

failing to meet any reasonable standard for acceptance - it
should have never been added under any objective rule set.


E, u, hold on a minute.  Who, supposedly in his right mind, 
but NOT holding an amateur radio operators license would think that 
ANY DX-Pedition is reasonable? Who gets to define reasonable?  As 
long as no laws are broken, and the participants act voluntarily, 
isn't reasonable anything we want to do?  Some people jump out of 
airplanes, or off of high bridges with stretchy rubber tied to their 
ankles. I wouldn't do it, I think they are nuts, but they make their 
own rules, just like we make ours. Reasonable is a very subjective 
term. Personally, I don't think that BS7 should have been made a new 
entity, but, apparently a majority of those interpreting the DXCC 
rules thought it qualified.


73,
Mike, W5UC




"age & treachery will overcome youth & skill"
http://www.suddenlink.net/pages/w5uc/ 




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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Where it is not possible to set up an "operating table" and 
chair on the surface of the entity, it should not be an 
entity.  Whether shelter is required is not the question - it 
seems I saw canopies for shade on BS7H. 

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV 
 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Dan Zimmerman N3OX
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:00 PM
> To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
> Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)
> 
> 
> > Agreed ... where it s not possible to even set up a table for
> > operating without first building a platform to create a level
> > surface, that entity certainly fails any test of common sense.
> 
> 3Y0X on Peter I. first had to set up tents before they set up tables
> so the ops wouldn't get buried in snow and freeze to death.
> 
> Should we delete it too?
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

Palmyra was always privately held.  It's just held now by a nature
preservation group instead of a family.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Subich,
W4TV
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)



Barry wrote:

> For me, it's not a question of danger.  It's a question of
> "does it make any sense?"  Here we have a few rocks sticking
> out of the ocean and the only way to "inhabit" them is to
> build scaffolding.  This is a stupid country.  How is it
> different from Okino Torishima (aka Baldwin's folly?)

Agreed ... where it s not possible to even set up a table for
operating without first building a platform to create a level
surface, that entity certainly fails any test of common sense.
I cannot see how this is any different than Okino Torishma,
Sealand - or granting "country" status to oil and gas E&P
platforms.  BS7H should be removed from the DXCC list as
failing to meet any reasonable standard for acceptance - it
should have never been added under any objective rule set.

> 4u1un & 4u1itu - both for obvious reasons.  Otherwise add
> every embassy and American Indian casino.

That's a little different - 4U1UN and 4U1ITU met objective
criteria when accepted.  The criteria ("separate administration")
was later deleted just to prevent turning DXCC into "worked all
embassies and reservations."

> Swains - a privately owned island becomes an instant country
> due to a rule change (brings up the frequently bantered topic
> of a few prominent DXers "making" countries.)

Agreed ... again private islands and sanctuaries where public
access is not permitted have no business being made countries.
The same should be said of Palmyra now that it s privately
held (The Nature Conservancy).

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:48 AM
> To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
> Subject: [DX-CHAT] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)
>
>
> For me, it's not a question of danger.  It's a question of
> "does it make
> any sense?"  Here we have a few rocks sticking out of the
> ocean and the
> only way to "inhabit" them is to build scaffolding.  This is a stupid
> country.  How is it different from Okino Torishima (aka
> Baldwin's folly?)
>
> Off the top of my head, there are other stupid countries, created by
> stupid rules.  This is not meant to be all inclusive.  I'm sure there
> are others:
>
> 4u1un & 4u1itu - both for obvious reasons.  Otherwise add
> every embassy
> and American Indian casino.
> Swains - a privately owned island becomes an instant country due to a
> rule change (brings up the frequently bantered topic of a few
> prominent
> DXers "making" countries.)
>
> When the stupid rule is corrected, the stupid countries should not
> remain on the list.  To me, it doesn't matter if a country is
> removed or
> deleted.  The all-time DXCC list is a showing of how old someone is,
> nothing more.
>
> 73,
> Barry, W2UP
> P.S.  In case you're wondering, I have them all and didn't need BS7
> (except on RTTY.)
>
>
> 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] BS7H thoughts

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

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

RE: [DX-CHAT] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

Barry,

Let's not forget that rules changes in the last few years, including but not
limited to the "DXCC 2000" rules rewrite, will prevent the equivalents of
many of the "stupid" or questionable entities from ever coming into
existance again.  Until the next re-write or amendment, of course... and
frankly, I was surprised at how quickly and quietly the rules change that
allowed Swains in after all slipped through, but THAT is another story.

The bottom line is that due to the grandfathering clause(s), we can't remove
those entities that no longer meet the criteria due to a rules change, only
those that no longer meet it due to a political or geographic change.  (Want
rid of BS7?  Well... can you convince someone in the Chinese or Phillipine
Navies to use them for target practice?).

The current rules are stricter and clearer on what is and isn't an entity.
So we should have no more cases of "is it or isn't it," especially on the
basis of one or more individual's personal beliefs, influences and biases.
We're just going to have to grin and bear it on some of the old & unusual
ones!

73

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:48 AM
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: [DX-CHAT] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)


For me, it's not a question of danger.  It's a question of "does it make
any sense?"  Here we have a few rocks sticking out of the ocean and the
only way to "inhabit" them is to build scaffolding.  This is a stupid
country.  How is it different from Okino Torishima (aka Baldwin's folly?)

Off the top of my head, there are other stupid countries, created by
stupid rules.  This is not meant to be all inclusive.  I'm sure there
are others:

4u1un & 4u1itu - both for obvious reasons.  Otherwise add every embassy
and American Indian casino.
Swains - a privately owned island becomes an instant country due to a
rule change (brings up the frequently bantered topic of a few prominent
DXers "making" countries.)

When the stupid rule is corrected, the stupid countries should not
remain on the list.  To me, it doesn't matter if a country is removed or
deleted.  The all-time DXCC list is a showing of how old someone is,
nothing more.

73,
Barry, W2UP
P.S.  In case you're wondering, I have them all and didn't need BS7
(except on RTTY.)


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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Jim Abercrombie]

Scarboro Reef meets the criterior because the rocks are above the water 
level at high tide. The deleted country that has the JD prefix was only 
above the water level at low tide. It was submerged at high tide.  That is 
one of the rules that governs what is a country, not whether or not you can 
set up a table on the rock.


Jim N4JA


- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Subich W4TV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:45 PM
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)




Barry wrote:


For me, it's not a question of danger.  It's a question of
"does it make any sense?"  Here we have a few rocks sticking
out of the ocean and the only way to "inhabit" them is to
build scaffolding.  This is a stupid country.  How is it
different from Okino Torishima (aka Baldwin's folly?)


Agreed ... where it s not possible to even set up a table for
operating without first building a platform to create a level
surface, that entity certainly fails any test of common sense.
I cannot see how this is any different than Okino Torishma,
Sealand - or granting "country" status to oil and gas E&P
platforms.  BS7H should be removed from the DXCC list as
failing to meet any reasonable standard for acceptance - it
should have never been added under any objective rule set.


4u1un & 4u1itu - both for obvious reasons.  Otherwise add
every embassy and American Indian casino.


That's a little different - 4U1UN and 4U1ITU met objective
criteria when accepted.  The criteria ("separate administration")
was later deleted just to prevent turning DXCC into "worked all
embassies and reservations."


Swains - a privately owned island becomes an instant country
due to a rule change (brings up the frequently bantered topic
of a few prominent DXers "making" countries.)


Agreed ... again private islands and sanctuaries where public
access is not permitted have no business being made countries.
The same should be said of Palmyra now that it s privately
held (The Nature Conservancy).

73,

  ... Joe, W4TV



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:48 AM
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: [DX-CHAT] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)


For me, it's not a question of danger.  It's a question of
"does it make
any sense?"  Here we have a few rocks sticking out of the
ocean and the
only way to "inhabit" them is to build scaffolding.  This is a stupid
country.  How is it different from Okino Torishima (aka
Baldwin's folly?)

Off the top of my head, there are other stupid countries, created by
stupid rules.  This is not meant to be all inclusive.  I'm sure there
are others:

4u1un & 4u1itu - both for obvious reasons.  Otherwise add
every embassy
and American Indian casino.
Swains - a privately owned island becomes an instant country due to a
rule change (brings up the frequently bantered topic of a few
prominent
DXers "making" countries.)

When the stupid rule is corrected, the stupid countries should not
remain on the list.  To me, it doesn't matter if a country is
removed or
deleted.  The all-time DXCC list is a showing of how old someone is,
nothing more.

73,
Barry, W2UP
P.S.  In case you're wondering, I have them all and didn't need BS7
(except on RTTY.)


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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 5/9/2007 
3:07 PM







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] more on BS7H

[john]

They look absolutely miserable!

:-)

John K5MO




At 11:01 AM 5/10/2007, K2EWB wrote:

A new photo of this "entity" is up on their site now, showing all the ops 
(who took the photo?)


http://www.scarboroughreef.com/

Make up your own minds.

N2ERN




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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Dan Zimmerman N3OX]

Agreed ... where it s not possible to even set up a table for
operating without first building a platform to create a level
surface, that entity certainly fails any test of common sense.


3Y0X on Peter I. first had to set up tents before they set up tables
so the ops wouldn't get buried in snow and freeze to death.

Should we delete it too?

Dan


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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Barry wrote: 

> For me, it's not a question of danger.  It's a question of 
> "does it make any sense?"  Here we have a few rocks sticking 
> out of the ocean and the only way to "inhabit" them is to 
> build scaffolding.  This is a stupid country.  How is it 
> different from Okino Torishima (aka Baldwin's folly?)

Agreed ... where it s not possible to even set up a table for 
operating without first building a platform to create a level 
surface, that entity certainly fails any test of common sense. 
I cannot see how this is any different than Okino Torishma,  
Sealand - or granting "country" status to oil and gas E&P 
platforms.  BS7H should be removed from the DXCC list as 
failing to meet any reasonable standard for acceptance - it 
should have never been added under any objective rule set. 
 
> 4u1un & 4u1itu - both for obvious reasons.  Otherwise add 
> every embassy and American Indian casino.

That's a little different - 4U1UN and 4U1ITU met objective 
criteria when accepted.  The criteria ("separate administration") 
was later deleted just to prevent turning DXCC into "worked all 
embassies and reservations." 

> Swains - a privately owned island becomes an instant country 
> due to a rule change (brings up the frequently bantered topic 
> of a few prominent DXers "making" countries.)

Agreed ... again private islands and sanctuaries where public 
access is not permitted have no business being made countries. 
The same should be said of Palmyra now that it s privately 
held (The Nature Conservancy). 

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV 
 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:48 AM
> To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
> Subject: [DX-CHAT] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)
> 
> 
> For me, it's not a question of danger.  It's a question of 
> "does it make 
> any sense?"  Here we have a few rocks sticking out of the 
> ocean and the 
> only way to "inhabit" them is to build scaffolding.  This is a stupid 
> country.  How is it different from Okino Torishima (aka 
> Baldwin's folly?)
> 
> Off the top of my head, there are other stupid countries, created by 
> stupid rules.  This is not meant to be all inclusive.  I'm sure there 
> are others:
> 
> 4u1un & 4u1itu - both for obvious reasons.  Otherwise add 
> every embassy 
> and American Indian casino.
> Swains - a privately owned island becomes an instant country due to a 
> rule change (brings up the frequently bantered topic of a few 
> prominent 
> DXers "making" countries.)
> 
> When the stupid rule is corrected, the stupid countries should not 
> remain on the list.  To me, it doesn't matter if a country is 
> removed or 
> deleted.  The all-time DXCC list is a showing of how old someone is, 
> nothing more.
> 
> 73,
> Barry, W2UP
> P.S.  In case you're wondering, I have them all and didn't need BS7 
> (except on RTTY.)
> 
> 
> 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] Thank you

[gdanaher]

 Steve-KF2TI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
 
> The Sunset over the reef is now my desktop background picture
> 
>
..and I'll wager that the photo from Rock 4 makes the cover of any book 
published in the future about DXing.  Absolutely great photography. 


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] Thank you

[Steve-KF2TI]

On behalf of all those involved, I'd like to thank everyone 
participating in the current BS7H threads.  It is refreshing to see 
dicussion from many viewpoints taking placw WITHOUT the use of 
diminutives and name calling

So thank you again

As to the pictures Don referenced, I failed to note the Porta-Potties 
attached to said operating station, attached to said rocks  hm

The Sunset over the reef is now my desktop background picture

And I will take it for granted that Dominos does NOT deliver there in 
30 minutes or less ;-0

Steve  KF2TI
Chief Reflector Administrative Assistant and Head Bottle Washer



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] WOW!!

[Mike(W5UC) & Kathy(K5MWH)]

There is a great clip of Marti talking about the BS7 experience on 
u-tube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXXi6WDMqGQ  Also, look to 
the right of the main pane and there are several other clips.


73,
Mike, W5UC

"age & treachery will overcome youth & skill"
http://www.suddenlink.net/pages/w5uc/ 




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] Another Example

[Mike(W5UC) & Kathy(K5MWH)]

At 09:38 AM 5/10/2007, Dan Zimmerman N3OX wrote:


I dunno about E3... that was another one with a flurry of activity
around 2000, but man, talk about an unstable region of the world.


Thanks Dan.  Yep, trying to operate from there at this time is a 
golden opportunity to get dead.  If danger were a legitimate reason 
for removing an entity from the list(which I don't believe it is), 
then E3 would step in line way out ahead of BS7.


73,
Mike, W5UC




"age & treachery will overcome youth & skill"
http://www.suddenlink.net/pages/w5uc/ 




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] more on BS7H

[Don Greenbaum]

Here is the beginning of the photo album showing the 4 operating positions.

http://www.scarboroughreef.com/srphotos.html


Don
N1DG, BS7H webmaster

At 11:01 AM 5/10/2007, K2EWB wrote:
>More than likely the picture was taken by one of the crewmen from the ship. 
>However, there is a possibility it was taken by one of the many Mermaids that 
>inhabit the reef. Now you know why so many chaps applied to become operators 
>at Scarborough.
> 
>Leon,   (K2EWB)  
>- Original Message - 
>From: harris_ruben 
>To: dx-chat List 
>Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:33 AM 
>Subject: [DX-CHAT] more on BS7H
>A new photo of this "entity" is up on their site now, showing all the ops (who 
>took the photo?)
>
>http://www.scarboroughreef.com/
>Make up your own minds.
>N2ERN
>
>
>-- 
>Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
>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 

- 
N1DG--Licensed since 1962 
EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, /KH9, /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V 
Pilot: VU7RG, 3Y0X, VK9ML, D68C, VK0IR, K8XP/KH9, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, ZL9CI 
Webmaster:  BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI 
QSL Manager:  A61AD, A61AO, A61X, A61AQ
2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame 
Member:  FOC, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC 

 


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] more on BS7H

[K2EWB]

more on BS7HMore than likely the picture was taken by one of the crewmen from 
the ship. However, there is a possibility it was taken by one of the many 
Mermaids that inhabit the reef. Now you know why so many chaps applied to 
become operators at Scarborough.

Leon,   (K2EWB)
  - Original Message - 
  From: harris_ruben 
  To: dx-chat List 
  Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:33 AM
  Subject: [DX-CHAT] more on BS7H


  A new photo of this "entity" is up on their site now, showing all the ops 
(who took the photo?)


  http://www.scarboroughreef.com/


  Make up your own minds.


  N2ERN
-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

  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] more on BS7H

[Dan Zimmerman N3OX]

They certainly don't look like the DX community held a gun to their
heads and forced them to activate this one to our own selfish ends.

;-)

For what it's worth, I wouldn't argue that this is the silliest DXCC
entity.  I mean, that platform is about the size of my back deck.  But
I think that makes the game that much more bizarre.

Part of what I like about DXing is that it's just such an unlikely
sport.  There's no actual point in making quick DX contacts outside of
the magic of "pinging" that point on the globe.

Dan


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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Larry, K4WLS]

WELL SAID BARRY - AMEN !  Larry,  K4WLS
>
- Original Message - 
From: "Barry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
ubject: [DX-CHAT] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)


For me, it's not a question of danger.  It's a question of "does it make 
any sense?"  Here we have a few rocks sticking out of the ocean and the 
only way to "inhabit" them is to build scaffolding.  This is a stupid 
country.  How is it different from Okino Torishima (aka Baldwin's folly?)

Off the top of my head, there are other stupid countries, created by 
stupid rules.  This is not meant to be all inclusive.  I'm sure there 
are others:

4u1un & 4u1itu - both for obvious reasons.  Otherwise add every embassy 
and American Indian casino.
Swains - a privately owned island becomes an instant country due to a 
rule change (brings up the frequently bantered topic of a few prominent 
DXers "making" countries.)

When the stupid rule is corrected, the stupid countries should not 
remain on the list.  To me, it doesn't matter if a country is removed or 
deleted.  The all-time DXCC list is a showing of how old someone is, 
nothing more.

73,
Barry, W2UP
P.S.  In case you're wondering, I have them all and didn't need BS7 
(except on RTTY).





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] Another Example

[Dan Zimmerman N3OX]

 Here is another example of  an entity that could reasonably be questioned.
Because the environmental extremist zealots have the attention of the
government of New Zealand, chances of working ZL9 are slim & none.


That's a great example.  In 2000 there was a major DXpedition; worked
many tens of thousands, yet under the current situation it's nearly
unworkable.

I got ZL9CI on 40m through 10m SSB and CW, no problem.  I missed BS7H
this time...  maybe it will never be activated again and I'll never
have a shot.  I missed VK0IR when it was on; I know it will be a while
before anyone does Heard Island again.


BUT, that's the way life is.  I missed my chance in 2000; So be it


I know I'd be much more satisfied if I had only a few left and was
tuning across 20m CW one night and heard "CQ CQ CQ de ZL9BSJ/P
ZL9BSJ/P K" and bagged him for my last one than if someone just
decided to delete it from the list because it was unlikely to be
activated.

Part of what makes difficult competitions fun is that they're difficult.

If everyone can work 'em all with a G5RV and a hundred watts in ten
years, it's not hard enough.  Not everyone gets to be number one.

- - - - - -

Good luck with the last two, Mike.  It sounds like you need a rhombic
right on ZL9 come Sept. 2008.

I dunno about E3... that was another one with a flurry of activity
around 2000, but man, talk about an unstable region of the world.

Dan


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] BS7H thoughts

[Osten B Magnusson]

Pushed the wrong button so this went to W9SZ...

Martti, OH2BH, has been on Scarborough Reef before and 
that didn't make him stay home! If you find the old book Martti 
wrote "Where do we go next?", you can read about his first 
real DX-pedition to Annobon, 3C0AN, and it was the first 
operation from that island. No landing strip but the inhabitants 
on Annobon "tried to make one" and a small military aircraft 
from Libreville managed to land. More problems when Martti 
and OH1MM were to be picked up, the aircraft was heavy and 
the pilots were not sure if they could take off - "shall we leave 
Martti or the equipment here?" They decided on the equipment...  
This was in 1972 and Martti has since always had problems with 
complicated malaria - it's been real hard for him.


Some DX'ers do a lot of dangerous things for us sitting here 
in our houses. My friends in D.R. Congo (9Q1D, 9Q1EK and

9Q1TB) have been shot at by local rebels in Kinshasa, and
Georges, 9Q1EK, has gunshot holes from a Kalashnikov 
in his UN marked car.

.
Don't criticize, try yourselves to go to places somewhere, more 
rare than the Caribbean Islands - even though these places also 
may be somewhat dangerous as JR (Johnny) Cash once had

robbers breaking in and shooting in his house in Jamaica.
It also looks dangerous (for WAS) to live in Oklahoma,
Kansas etc. these days... And please NEVER go somewhere
by car, there are always drunks driving in the opposite 
direction! If you are at my age, also make sure that you don't fall

when you are out walking!

73/DX de Osten  SM5DQC[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - 
From: "Zack Widup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts




I can see your point Charlie, but maybe the people who we REALLY need to 
ask are the people who put on the DXpedition and went there.  Just like 
those who climb Mt. Everest or K2, they knew what they were getting into 
beforehand and knew what was likely to happen when they got there.


It seems there are people willing to go to these places so we can sit in 
our comfy chairs and try to work them.  They do so on their own 
responsibility.  They took the risk and great personal cost to do so.  
How are THEY going to feel if the entity is deleted and their work was 
for naught?


The time to "delete" an entity such as Scarborough is before it even gets 
created.  That way no one has to feel a personal loss because they did 
risk their lives and pocketbooks for nothing.


73, Zack W9SZ




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] more on BS7H

[harris_ruben]

A new photo of this "entity" is up on their site now, showing all the 
ops (who took the photo?)


http://www.scarboroughreef.com/

Make up your own minds.

N2ERN
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

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] BS7H thoughts

[Ronald Loneker Sr.]

Talk about danger... Martti OH2BH, my brother in kidney tranplantation 
was along with the crew on BS7.  We must take large amounts of
anti-rejection medications and others  a few times a day or risk organ 
rejection which could lead to death. No whimpering out of Martti , but I
really would like to know how he kept all those pills dry. DX is!...  
73,  Ron 



Dan Zimmerman N3OX wrote:

N1DG; Los Angeles is a new one?  Hehehe.

I agree that there is no sense deleting an entity because of danger.
Yes, the BS7H guys put their lives on the line for a few silly radio
contacts, but I bet that it was an experience that they will never for
a second regret.

It's called an adventure.  If it had truly been a suicide mission, no
one would activate it.

- - - - - - -

I think there should never be a precedent set for deletion or
exclusion from the DXCC list because a particular entity is too hard
to activate, no matter what the reason.

I want more entities, not fewer.  More fun that way (point taken about
IOTA; haven't gone that way yet, but maybe after I work another 40
countries or so )

73,
Dan


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






--
Ronald Loneker Sr. - KA2BZS
#1 DXCC - DXCC MIXED-CW-PHONE- 160M
9 Band DXCC - A1-OP
E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cwforever.com





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] BS7H thoughts

[Zack Widup]

I can see your point Charlie, but maybe the people who we REALLY need to 
ask are the people who put on the DXpedition and went there.  Just like 
those who climb Mt. Everest or K2, they knew what they were getting into 
beforehand and knew what was likely to happen when they got there.

It seems there are people willing to go to these places so we can sit in 
our comfy chairs and try to work them.  They do so on their own 
responsibility.  They took the risk and great personal cost to do so.  
How are THEY going to feel if the entity is deleted and their work was 
for naught?

The time to "delete" an entity such as Scarborough is before it even gets 
created.  That way no one has to feel a personal loss because they did 
risk their lives and pocketbooks for nothing.

73, Zack W9SZ

On Thu, 10 May 2007, Charles Harpole wrote:

> 
> However, I have to ask if this set of rocks is worth the risks?  I know 
> mountain climbers die in their efforts and there are many other very 
> dangerous "sport" activities, but should we as a hobby sanction placing our 
> fellow hams into a place where the slightest bad weather, lightning strike, 
> or just a nasty fall would have been an easy-to-happen disaster.  How would 
> we feel as hams if the worst had happened there?  How much should we depend 
> on LUCK? I think anyone can go where ever they please, but not with the 
> sanction and official stamp of our great avocation.
> 
> Maybe it is time to re-think the DXCC status of this place?
> 
> 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

RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts

[Peter Dougherty]

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

[DX-CHAT] More BS7 Thoughts

[LA5HE Ragnar Otterstad]

I don't think it's an issue of safety, the rules are the rules.

So, if "the rock" qualifies, why not. I'm sure there could be a 
lively discussion of why it qualified,  but that's another thread.

73,
Gene K5GS



It is a game !! 

Enjoy it or do something else,  f ex chasing islands which is just as much
fun - and there are more of them Hi !  hi

73  

" RAG "  Ragnar Otterstad   LA5HE JW5HE OZ8RO


Located in Telemark - Home of skiing.

For more information about Telemark take a look at :  
www.telemarksnett.no/en/index.html







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] BS7H thoughts

[Dan Zimmerman N3OX]

N1DG; Los Angeles is a new one?  Hehehe.

I agree that there is no sense deleting an entity because of danger.
Yes, the BS7H guys put their lives on the line for a few silly radio
contacts, but I bet that it was an experience that they will never for
a second regret.

It's called an adventure.  If it had truly been a suicide mission, no
one would activate it.

- - - - - - -

I think there should never be a precedent set for deletion or
exclusion from the DXCC list because a particular entity is too hard
to activate, no matter what the reason.

I want more entities, not fewer.  More fun that way (point taken about
IOTA; haven't gone that way yet, but maybe after I work another 40
countries or so )

73,
Dan


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] Another Example

[Mike(W5UC) & Kathy(K5MWH)]

Here is another example of  an entity that could reasonably be 
questioned.  Because the environmental extremist zealots have the 
attention of the government of New Zealand, chances of working ZL9 
are slim & none.(before you get your shorts all in a wad, there is a 
difference between environmentalists,and environmental extremist 
zealots) Below is a note that I got from a fellow who, at least for 
now, is the only likely person to operate from ZL9:


Hello Mike,

I don't go to ZL9 for work, but I occasionally end up there as an unintended
side-effect of our fish surveys in the area. Next Campbell Platform survey:
Sept. 2008.

More info at:

http://homepages.woosh.co.nz/wk/zl9/zl9bsj.html

Wilbert, ZL2BSJ ZL9BSJ/P

This fellow goes there rarely, and for only very short (hours) 
periods.  Since ZL9 stands between me and DXCC#1(I need ZL9 & E3), I 
could possibly argue for it's removal from the list.  At age 68, I 
have almost no chance at it since it usually takes years for the 
wheels of change to turn in a federal government.  BUT, that's the 
way life is.  I missed my chance in 2000; So be it.  Please stop 
trying to intercourse with the list!


73,
Mike, W5UC







"age & treachery will overcome youth & skill"
http://www.suddenlink.net/pages/w5uc/ 

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] BS7 Thoughts

[Gene S.]

We have gone down this road many times over the years.  So there is 
no need to repeat this thread.


"Those who fail to study history are condemned to repeat it"

This is actually a perfect thread, for today there are many new DXers 
out there who either don't know, or don't understand" the history of 
DXCC; the rules; the occasions where the rules have ruled even when 
they shouldn't have. (Does that make sense?).  I know, there are a 
lot of "senior" DXers who follow this reflector, but there are also a 
lot of new entrants to DXCC.


Based on my years in DXCC, it would seem to me that more people died, 
or incurred life threatening injuries, on Field Day, or working on 
their equipment / tower than going on DX-peditions. (yea, I 
know,  apples and oranges)


30 years ago the argument was we should delete China, and today North 
Korea, or other DXCC entities where operation is "politically" controlled.


I don't think it's an issue of safety, the rules are the rules.

So, if "the rock" qualifies, why not. I'm sure there could be a 
lively discussion of why it qualified,  but that's another thread.


73,
Gene K5GS



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] "Stupid" countries" (formerly BS7H thoughts)

[Barry]

For me, it's not a question of danger.  It's a question of "does it make 
any sense?"  Here we have a few rocks sticking out of the ocean and the 
only way to "inhabit" them is to build scaffolding.  This is a stupid 
country.  How is it different from Okino Torishima (aka Baldwin's folly?)


Off the top of my head, there are other stupid countries, created by 
stupid rules.  This is not meant to be all inclusive.  I'm sure there 
are others:


4u1un & 4u1itu - both for obvious reasons.  Otherwise add every embassy 
and American Indian casino.
Swains - a privately owned island becomes an instant country due to a 
rule change (brings up the frequently bantered topic of a few prominent 
DXers "making" countries.)


When the stupid rule is corrected, the stupid countries should not 
remain on the list.  To me, it doesn't matter if a country is removed or 
deleted.  The all-time DXCC list is a showing of how old someone is, 
nothing more.


73,
Barry, W2UP
P.S.  In case you're wondering, I have them all and didn't need BS7 
(except on RTTY.)



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] BS7H thoughts

[Peter Forbes]

Hi all,

In the near future BS7 may delete itself if global warming continues, the 
ocean levels rise and the tidal extremes increase.


But whilst it IS there, why not?

Cheers

Peter  VK3QI

- Original Message - 
From: "Don Greenbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts


If you delete BS7 based on danger, then you need to look at all the other 
entities that are not "safe".  Peter I, South Sandwich, Baghdad, Los 
Angeles, VU4 (Tsunami Danger).


See where this is headed?

Don
N1DG

At 07:58 AM 5/10/2007, Mike(W5UC) & Kathy(K5MWH) wrote:

Good Morning Bernie & All:

After seeing the video from 1997 I too questioned whether BS7 should be on 
the list. My conclusion is that it should never have been a new 
entity(don't ask me why, I don't have a good answer).  However, now that 
it is on the list I do not believe it should be removed.  In retrospect, a 
land mass clause probably should have been an original part of the rules, 
but it wasn't/isn't.  You can't un-ring the bell.


Move on.

73,
Mike, W5UC





At 05:59 AM 5/10/2007, Bernie McClenny, W3UR wrote:
HS0ZCW, who sometimes operates as K4VUD said "Maybe it is time to 
re-think

the DXCC status of this place?"

This would set a terrible precedence!  We must follow the DXCC rules
otherwise we will destroy the very fabric of the integrity of the DXCC
program.  If we do as Charles suggests for BS7H what will be next?  This 
is

a slippery slope.  Anyone could then make the same case for many other
counters on the DXCC list.  I won't give examples but one could easily 
list

many more countries for their "own personal" reasons.  We have gone down
this road many times over the years.  So there is no need to repeat this
thread.  There is one and only one way for a DXCC Entity (country) to be
removed from the DXCC list.

Notice I said removed!  I don't think many people realize the next 
country
that does not meet the DXCC criteria will be removed, not deleted, as 
there
will be no more deletes because of the results of DXCC 2000.  That's 
right a
removal, which will be as if you never worked it!  More on that 
discussion

later.

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 wonder how many have actually read the DXCC rules?
http://www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc/rules.html
Notice I said read them, not understood them all!  Some are hard to
understand, but then again so are some of the counters on the list!

See you in the next pileup?
Bernie, W3UR



Bernie McClenny, W3UR
--
Now more than ever - you need The Daily DX and The Weekly DX - to keep up
with the DX news from around the globe!

Editor of - The Daily DX <-- two free weeks 
http://www.dailydx.com/order.htm

 - The Weekly DX <-- free sample
http://www.dailydx.com/weekly2.html
 - How's DX

http://www.dailydx.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles 
Harpole

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 01:39
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts

Fellow DXers Prior to the latest BS7H op, I had not given the Rocks 
any

attention and had only a vague notion of what is there.  But today I read
the web sites, saw the photos,  and listened to James' super interview 
while


on site.  I come away of two minds... one with great appreciation and awe 
at


the accomplishment and second with a deeper understanding of how truly
dangerous this op was.

Of course, I congratulate all who make this happen and especially to men 
who


were willing genuinely to risk their lives to do the op.  Let nothing 
take

away from that.

However, I have to ask if this set of rocks is worth the risks?  I know
mountain climbers die in their efforts and there are many other very
dangerous "sport" activities, but should we as a hobby sanction placing 
our
fellow hams into a place where the slightest bad weather, lightning 
strike,
or just a nasty fall would have been an easy-to-happen disaster.  How 
would
we feel as hams if the worst had happened there?  How much should we 
depend

on LUCK? I think anyone can go where ever they please, but not with the
sanction and official stamp of our great avocation.

Maybe it is time to re-think the DXCC status of this place?

Charles Harpole
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
Catch suspicious messages before you open them-with Windows Live Hotmail.
http://imag

RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts

[Don Greenbaum]

If you delete BS7 based on danger, then you need to look at all the other 
entities that are not "safe".  Peter I, South Sandwich, Baghdad, Los Angeles, 
VU4 (Tsunami Danger).

See where this is headed?

Don
N1DG

At 07:58 AM 5/10/2007, Mike(W5UC) & Kathy(K5MWH) wrote:
>Good Morning Bernie & All:
>
>After seeing the video from 1997 I too questioned whether BS7 should be on the 
>list. My conclusion is that it should never have been a new entity(don't ask 
>me why, I don't have a good answer).  However, now that it is on the list I do 
>not believe it should be removed.  In retrospect, a land mass clause probably 
>should have been an original part of the rules, but it wasn't/isn't.  You 
>can't un-ring the bell.
>
>Move on.
>
>73,
>Mike, W5UC
>
>
>
>
>
>At 05:59 AM 5/10/2007, Bernie McClenny, W3UR wrote:
>>HS0ZCW, who sometimes operates as K4VUD said "Maybe it is time to re-think
>>the DXCC status of this place?"
>>
>>This would set a terrible precedence!  We must follow the DXCC rules
>>otherwise we will destroy the very fabric of the integrity of the DXCC
>>program.  If we do as Charles suggests for BS7H what will be next?  This is
>>a slippery slope.  Anyone could then make the same case for many other
>>counters on the DXCC list.  I won't give examples but one could easily list
>>many more countries for their "own personal" reasons.  We have gone down
>>this road many times over the years.  So there is no need to repeat this
>>thread.  There is one and only one way for a DXCC Entity (country) to be
>>removed from the DXCC list.
>>
>>Notice I said removed!  I don't think many people realize the next country
>>that does not meet the DXCC criteria will be removed, not deleted, as there
>>will be no more deletes because of the results of DXCC 2000.  That's right a
>>removal, which will be as if you never worked it!  More on that discussion
>>later.
>>
>>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 wonder how many have actually read the DXCC rules?
>>http://www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc/rules.html
>>Notice I said read them, not understood them all!  Some are hard to
>>understand, but then again so are some of the counters on the list!
>>
>>See you in the next pileup?
>>Bernie, W3UR
>>
>>
>>
>>Bernie McClenny, W3UR
>>--
>>Now more than ever - you need The Daily DX and The Weekly DX - to keep up
>>with the DX news from around the globe!
>>
>>Editor of - The Daily DX <-- two free weeks http://www.dailydx.com/order.htm
>>  - The Weekly DX <-- free sample
>>http://www.dailydx.com/weekly2.html
>>  - How's DX
>>
>>http://www.dailydx.com
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Harpole
>>Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 01:39
>>To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
>>Subject: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
>>
>>Fellow DXers Prior to the latest BS7H op, I had not given the Rocks any
>>attention and had only a vague notion of what is there.  But today I read
>>the web sites, saw the photos,  and listened to James' super interview while
>>
>>on site.  I come away of two minds... one with great appreciation and awe at
>>
>>the accomplishment and second with a deeper understanding of how truly
>>dangerous this op was.
>>
>>Of course, I congratulate all who make this happen and especially to men who
>>
>>were willing genuinely to risk their lives to do the op.  Let nothing take
>>away from that.
>>
>>However, I have to ask if this set of rocks is worth the risks?  I know
>>mountain climbers die in their efforts and there are many other very
>>dangerous "sport" activities, but should we as a hobby sanction placing our
>>fellow hams into a place where the slightest bad weather, lightning strike,
>>or just a nasty fall would have been an easy-to-happen disaster.  How would
>>we feel as hams if the worst had happened there?  How much should we depend
>>on LUCK? I think anyone can go where ever they please, but not with the
>>sanction and official stamp of our great avocation.
>>
>>Maybe it is time to re-think the DXCC status of this place?
>>
>>Charles Harpole
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>_
>>Catch suspicious messages before you open them-with Windows Live Hotmail.
>>http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migratio
>>n_HM_mini_protection_0507
>>
>>
>>
>>Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
>>http://njdxa.org/dx-chat
>>
>>To post a m

RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts

[Mike(W5UC) & Kathy(K5MWH)]

Good Morning Bernie & All:

After seeing the video from 1997 I too questioned whether BS7 should 
be on the list. My conclusion is that it should never have been a new 
entity(don't ask me why, I don't have a good answer).  However, now 
that it is on the list I do not believe it should be removed.  In 
retrospect, a land mass clause probably should have been an original 
part of the rules, but it wasn't/isn't.  You can't un-ring the bell.


Move on.

73,
Mike, W5UC





At 05:59 AM 5/10/2007, Bernie McClenny, W3UR wrote:

HS0ZCW, who sometimes operates as K4VUD said "Maybe it is time to re-think
the DXCC status of this place?"

This would set a terrible precedence!  We must follow the DXCC rules
otherwise we will destroy the very fabric of the integrity of the DXCC
program.  If we do as Charles suggests for BS7H what will be next?  This is
a slippery slope.  Anyone could then make the same case for many other
counters on the DXCC list.  I won't give examples but one could easily list
many more countries for their "own personal" reasons.  We have gone down
this road many times over the years.  So there is no need to repeat this
thread.  There is one and only one way for a DXCC Entity (country) to be
removed from the DXCC list.

Notice I said removed!  I don't think many people realize the next country
that does not meet the DXCC criteria will be removed, not deleted, as there
will be no more deletes because of the results of DXCC 2000.  That's right a
removal, which will be as if you never worked it!  More on that discussion
later.

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 wonder how many have actually read the DXCC rules?
http://www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc/rules.html
Notice I said read them, not understood them all!  Some are hard to
understand, but then again so are some of the counters on the list!

See you in the next pileup?
Bernie, W3UR



Bernie McClenny, W3UR
--
Now more than ever - you need The Daily DX and The Weekly DX - to keep up
with the DX news from around the globe!

Editor of - The Daily DX <-- two free weeks http://www.dailydx.com/order.htm
  - The Weekly DX <-- free sample
http://www.dailydx.com/weekly2.html
  - How's DX

http://www.dailydx.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Harpole
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 01:39
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts

Fellow DXers Prior to the latest BS7H op, I had not given the Rocks any
attention and had only a vague notion of what is there.  But today I read
the web sites, saw the photos,  and listened to James' super interview while

on site.  I come away of two minds... one with great appreciation and awe at

the accomplishment and second with a deeper understanding of how truly
dangerous this op was.

Of course, I congratulate all who make this happen and especially to men who

were willing genuinely to risk their lives to do the op.  Let nothing take
away from that.

However, I have to ask if this set of rocks is worth the risks?  I know
mountain climbers die in their efforts and there are many other very
dangerous "sport" activities, but should we as a hobby sanction placing our
fellow hams into a place where the slightest bad weather, lightning strike,
or just a nasty fall would have been an easy-to-happen disaster.  How would
we feel as hams if the worst had happened there?  How much should we depend
on LUCK? I think anyone can go where ever they please, but not with the
sanction and official stamp of our great avocation.

Maybe it is time to re-think the DXCC status of this place?

Charles Harpole
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
Catch suspicious messages before you open them-with Windows Live Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migratio
n_HM_mini_protection_0507



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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/795 - Release Date: 
5/9/200

Re: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts

[N4BAA - Jose Castillo]

John,

Exactly! I am in 100% agreement with you.

A few "Holy Grails" scattered about the world is a good 
thing.  It won't take long for someone or some group to come 
along and step up to the challenge!  Money holds most back, 
but it is MY personal opinion, that if the monetary hurdle 
were not there, MANY would take that challenge!


Danger accessing a given location is NOT a reason to remove 
an "entity" from the DXCC list!.. There are islands where 
amateurs have died while on DXPeditions (Malpelo I 
think..just to name one)..and they are still on the list.

What better way to go? 

Jose - N4BAA




john wrote:

At 01:39 AM 5/10/2007, you wrote:
Oh please

Not everyone wants a rubber padded room world, where everything is safe 
and risk free.  If you don't wish to go, then don't, but don't remove 
the excitement of doing something difficult for the rest of the world, 
just because YOU think it's the way things should be.


Nobody at the ARRL puts a gun to someones head, and forces guys to go. 
They do it precisely because it's difficult, remote, and yes, 
potentially dangerous and certainly exciting.


John K5MO






However, I have to ask if this set of rocks is worth the risks?  I 
know mountain climbers die in their efforts and there are many other 
very dangerous "sport" activities, but should we as a hobby sanction 
placing our fellow hams into a place where the slightest bad weather, 
lightning strike, or just a nasty fall would have been an 
easy-to-happen disaster.  How would we feel as hams if the worst had 
happened there?  How much should we depend on LUCK? I think anyone can 
go where ever they please, but not with the sanction and official 
stamp of our great avocation.


Maybe it is time to re-think the DXCC status of this place?

Charles Harpole
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
Catch suspicious messages before you open them—with Windows Live 
Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507 





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] BS7H thoughts

[Steve-KF2TI]

Bravo, and very well stated

Sir Edmund Hillary said it best when asked why he climbed Mt Everest.
 His response, "because it was there"


On 10 May 2007 at 6:39, john wrote:

Date sent:  Thu, 10 May 2007 06:39:39 -0400
From:   john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:Re: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], dx-chat@njdxa.org
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> At 01:39 AM 5/10/2007, you wrote:
> Oh please
>
> Not everyone wants a rubber padded room world, where everything is safe and
> risk free.  If you don't wish to go, then don't, but don't remove the
> excitement of doing something difficult for the rest of the world, just
> because YOU think it's the way things should be.
>
> Nobody at the ARRL puts a gun to someones head, and forces guys to go. They
> do it precisely because it's difficult, remote, and yes, potentially
> dangerous and certainly exciting.
>
> John K5MO
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >However, I have to ask if this set of rocks is worth the risks?  I know
> >mountain climbers die in their efforts and there are many other very
> >dangerous "sport" activities, but should we as a hobby sanction placing
> >our fellow hams into a place where the slightest bad weather, lightning
> >strike, or just a nasty fall would have been an easy-to-happen
> >disaster.  How would we feel as hams if the worst had happened there?  How
> >much should we depend on LUCK? I think anyone can go where ever they
> >please, but not with the sanction and official stamp of our great avocation.
> >
> >Maybe it is time to re-think the DXCC status of this place?
> >
> >Charles Harpole
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >_
> >Catch suspicious messages before you open them-with Windows Live Hotmail.
> >http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507
> >
> >
> >
> >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] BS7H thoughts

[Bernie McClenny, W3UR]

HS0ZCW, who sometimes operates as K4VUD said "Maybe it is time to re-think
the DXCC status of this place?"

This would set a terrible precedence!  We must follow the DXCC rules
otherwise we will destroy the very fabric of the integrity of the DXCC
program.  If we do as Charles suggests for BS7H what will be next?  This is
a slippery slope.  Anyone could then make the same case for many other
counters on the DXCC list.  I won't give examples but one could easily list
many more countries for their "own personal" reasons.  We have gone down
this road many times over the years.  So there is no need to repeat this
thread.  There is one and only one way for a DXCC Entity (country) to be
removed from the DXCC list.  

Notice I said removed!  I don't think many people realize the next country
that does not meet the DXCC criteria will be removed, not deleted, as there
will be no more deletes because of the results of DXCC 2000.  That's right a
removal, which will be as if you never worked it!  More on that discussion
later.

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 wonder how many have actually read the DXCC rules?
http://www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc/rules.html
Notice I said read them, not understood them all!  Some are hard to
understand, but then again so are some of the counters on the list!

See you in the next pileup?
Bernie, W3UR  



Bernie McClenny, W3UR
--
Now more than ever - you need The Daily DX and The Weekly DX - to keep up
with the DX news from around the globe!

Editor of - The Daily DX <-- two free weeks http://www.dailydx.com/order.htm
  - The Weekly DX <-- free sample
http://www.dailydx.com/weekly2.html
  - How's DX

http://www.dailydx.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Harpole
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 01:39
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts

Fellow DXers Prior to the latest BS7H op, I had not given the Rocks any 
attention and had only a vague notion of what is there.  But today I read 
the web sites, saw the photos,  and listened to James' super interview while

on site.  I come away of two minds... one with great appreciation and awe at

the accomplishment and second with a deeper understanding of how truly 
dangerous this op was.

Of course, I congratulate all who make this happen and especially to men who

were willing genuinely to risk their lives to do the op.  Let nothing take 
away from that.

However, I have to ask if this set of rocks is worth the risks?  I know 
mountain climbers die in their efforts and there are many other very 
dangerous "sport" activities, but should we as a hobby sanction placing our 
fellow hams into a place where the slightest bad weather, lightning strike, 
or just a nasty fall would have been an easy-to-happen disaster.  How would 
we feel as hams if the worst had happened there?  How much should we depend 
on LUCK? I think anyone can go where ever they please, but not with the 
sanction and official stamp of our great avocation.

Maybe it is time to re-think the DXCC status of this place?

Charles Harpole
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
Catch suspicious messages before you open them-with Windows Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migratio
n_HM_mini_protection_0507



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] BS7H thoughts

[john]

At 01:39 AM 5/10/2007, you wrote:
Oh please

Not everyone wants a rubber padded room world, where everything is safe and 
risk free.  If you don't wish to go, then don't, but don't remove the 
excitement of doing something difficult for the rest of the world, just 
because YOU think it's the way things should be.


Nobody at the ARRL puts a gun to someones head, and forces guys to go. They 
do it precisely because it's difficult, remote, and yes, potentially 
dangerous and certainly exciting.


John K5MO






However, I have to ask if this set of rocks is worth the risks?  I know 
mountain climbers die in their efforts and there are many other very 
dangerous "sport" activities, but should we as a hobby sanction placing 
our fellow hams into a place where the slightest bad weather, lightning 
strike, or just a nasty fall would have been an easy-to-happen 
disaster.  How would we feel as hams if the worst had happened there?  How 
much should we depend on LUCK? I think anyone can go where ever they 
please, but not with the sanction and official stamp of our great avocation.


Maybe it is time to re-think the DXCC status of this place?

Charles Harpole
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
Catch suspicious messages before you open them—with Windows Live Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507




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] BS7H thoughts

[Jay Hainline]

It makes me wonder if the ARRL would be liable is someone was seriously
injured or killed by trying to put this "land mass" on the air. A place
where the only shelter you can put up is an umbrella should be deleted.
Maybe there should be a minimum land mass requirement in the dxcc rules?

73 Jay


Jay Hainline  KA9CFD  EN40om
Colchester, IL

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Harpole
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 05:39
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
Subject: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts

Fellow DXers Prior to the latest BS7H op, I had not given the Rocks any
attention and had only a vague notion of what is there.  But today I read
the web sites, saw the photos,  and listened to James' super interview while
on site.  I come away of two minds... one with great appreciation and awe at
the accomplishment and second with a deeper understanding of how truly
dangerous this op was.

Of course, I congratulate all who make this happen and especially to men who
were willing genuinely to risk their lives to do the op.  Let nothing take
away from that.

However, I have to ask if this set of rocks is worth the risks?  I know
mountain climbers die in their efforts and there are many other very
dangerous "sport" activities, but should we as a hobby sanction placing our
fellow hams into a place where the slightest bad weather, lightning strike,
or just a nasty fall would have been an easy-to-happen disaster.  How would
we feel as hams if the worst had happened there?  How much should we depend
on LUCK? I think anyone can go where ever they please, but not with the
sanction and official stamp of our great avocation.

Maybe it is time to re-think the DXCC status of this place?

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

RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts

[LA5HE Ragnar Otterstad]

However, I have to ask if this set of rocks is worth the risks?  I know 
mountain climbers die in their efforts and there are many other very 
dangerous "sport" activities, but should we as a hobby sanction placing our 
fellow hams into a place where the slightest bad weather, lightning strike, 
or just a nasty fall would have been an easy-to-happen disaster.  How would 
we feel as hams if the worst had happened there?  How much should we depend 
on LUCK? I think anyone can go where ever they please, but not with the 
sanction and official stamp of our great avocation.

Maybe it is time to re-think the DXCC status of this place?

Charles Harpole
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Quite a few DX.-ers are now focusing on IOTA as a more attractive
alternative than DXCC now..
Rocks like BS7 will still be dangerous, of course ! 
73

Rag LA5HE




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<>