RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: > Well Mome, the point I was trying to make was that any effort to re-do the > DXCC list -- something that I do NOT personally advocate, by the way -- over > from scratch will create just as much controversy as retaining the current > list; and possibly (probably) more. [note: that means that you two guys > over in GM, you know who you are, can quit throwing stuff at me, I was > speaking hypothetically!] > Hey, if someone wants to throw greenstamps, IRC's, or - better yet, expensive radios - at me, I won't turn them down! 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
RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
Well Mome, the point I was trying to make was that any effort to re-do the DXCC list -- something that I do NOT personally advocate, by the way -- over from scratch will create just as much controversy as retaining the current list; and possibly (probably) more. [note: that means that you two guys over in GM, you know who you are, can quit throwing stuff at me, I was speaking hypothetically!] I was also trying to point out (in the part that got clipped out of the reply) that many of the odd and unusual -- and suspect -- entities that exist today could not come into being today under current rules. So at least there will be no more (although had the rules not changed, I could argue for the inclusion of 4U1VIC; actually, I could argue either side of that one, but it's now a moot point anyway)... and especially none created due to phony IARU societies, which covers at least 2 of the entities added since the DXCC 2000 rules went into effect. 'nuff said. But, if you really want to chew on something, consider this: Don Miller W9WNV. He sure did activate a whole bunch of new ones... only quite a few never went on the books officially (or were removed after the fact) due to lack of documentation. Remember, there was only ONE operation that he actually owned up to faking; quite a few were accepted, mainly his earlier endeavors. It was only his later ones, were suspicions of "cut corners" came up, that were questioned. What if... Don ever did come up with the paperwork to prove that some or all of these "removed" entities weren't bogus, but were legit and he really did operate from them? How many "new ones" could be put back on the map? How many HR positions would change? I don't think it will happen... the paperwork, if it ever existed, would be over 30 years old, some possibly 40 or more. But if you think about the ramifications if something ever did turn up... 73 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mome Z32ZM Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:42 AM To: DX Chat Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts OC Ron, You finaly comme on mine. This is something I been writing allmost 8 months a go, (I think subject like KH8ZM or so). Then everyone go against me, but now repeating mine questions, posible answers etc..NEVERMIND. I think its about the time that DXAC members must seat-down and clear up the DXCC (delete OR add entities) for quite long period, OR the mess will continue?!?!?! CU in the Z7 & Z9 pile-up's :) All the best & Have nice day! Stay Tuned & GL on SIX !!! 73 GL&DX!!!de: Mome - Z32ZM http://www.qsl.net/z32zm - Original Message - From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:59 AM Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts > Well, here's the thing: > 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? 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
OC Ron, You finaly comme on mine. This is something I been writing allmost 8 months a go, (I think subject like KH8ZM or so). Then everyone go against me, but now repeating mine questions, posible answers etc..NEVERMIND. I think its about the time that DXAC members must seat-down and clear up the DXCC (delete OR add entities) for quite long period, OR the mess will continue?!?!?! CU in the Z7 & Z9 pile-up's :) All the best & Have nice day! Stay Tuned & GL on SIX !!! 73 GL&DX!!!de: Mome - Z32ZM http://www.qsl.net/z32zm - Original Message - From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:59 AM Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts > Well, here's the thing: > 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? 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
I don't remember all the exact details of the DXCC 2000 rewrite. What I do remember was that K5UR, N4MM, K5VUF (now K5NX) and several others were on the committee. I do remember receiving the questionnaire, which I believe was available to all DXers. This was back around 1997 or 1998. Other than that I don't remember. 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 Ron Notarius W3WN Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 18:00 To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts 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 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
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
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] BS7H thoughts
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] BS7H thoughts
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
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
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
Re: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
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
Re: [DX-CHAT] BS7H thoughts
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] _
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://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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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<>
