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
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 GLDX!!!de: Mome - Z32ZM http://www.qsl.net/z32zm - Original Message - From: Ron Notarius W3WN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dx-chat@njdxa.org 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
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
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
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-usocid=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
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-usocid=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
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-usocid=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
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? smiling 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-usocid=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
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-usocid=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: 5/9/2007 3:07 PM
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-usocid=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
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: dx-chat@njdxa.org 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
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
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
