Well, I will be pleased and my faith in DXCC will be restored when they
delete the farce of "Scaffold Reef" - "B.S.- seven- hotel"!. As far as I'm
concerned, I f you can't sleep on it and prepare meals on it - it ain't a
"country"! I by any stretch of the imagination! ( I did work BS7H and have
it confirmed, but it's not a "country"!)
73,
Charlie, K4OTV
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Subich, W4TV
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:56 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: DXCC Desk?
Herb,
Get your "facts" straight ... the issues you raise happened in the main
more than 20 years ago. The latest DXCC rules revision "DXCC 2000" has
greatly simplified (and removed the subjectivity) from the entities
criteria (although there are those who can't read a map properly and
screw up the separation between Saba and Bonaire).
The current criteria are quite simple and transparent - leaving very
little "interpretation" as to what qualifies as a "political entity",
or "Geographic Separation Entity". There is simply no opportunity for
the backroom politics under the current rules. In that regard the
issues about which you are kvetching have been resolved for 15 years.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 11/18/2013 3:33 PM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote:
> Gents... Amateur radio is supposed to be devoid of politics as much as
> possible. but the more you dig the worse it gets. I once attended an
> IARU Region II meeting in Jamaica and was amazed by all the wheeling and
> dealing going on with DXCC accreditation at the core. That was nearly 50
> years ago and it seems not much has changed. I had even heard that the
> ops at 706T where banned from working any 4X4's but the sharp ops with a
> wink and a nod just logged VX4*** rather than mentioning anything on the
> air. Would the ARRL "DXCC Desk" discredit a single 4X4 in need of this
> one? I sort of doubt it. At times there are bona fide reasons to make
> exception. Also the creation of private DX preserves by the ARRL for
> certain Radio Societies is legend. In fact KP5 (Desecheo) should never
> have been granted DXCC status when Mona Island which permits visitors
> was refused. Additionally Water Island, which KP2A fought for for
> years, was clearly not part of the USVI and until recently administered
> solely by the U.S. Department of interior. But so the story goes that
> hams in Puerto Rico had decided to join the IARU as a distinct and
> unique entity apart from the U.S. and the creation of a private DXCC
> location was the price the ARRL paid to halt those plans. The DXCC
> rules have been anything but consistant and have been bent and twisted
> like a heavily gerrymander congressional district to purposely include
> or exclude voters of certain just to satisfy some.
>
>
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/18/2013 3:47 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>
>> Len,
>>
>>> Why, you might ask after all this suffering, is that this nation
>>> still is not recognazid as a separate entity to this very small
>>> world of the global assembly that Ham radio really is?
>>
>> Ask the Serbs and Russians why they blocked Kosovar membership in the
>> UN and prevented ITU from assigning a callsign block, dialing prefix
>> and internet TLD? If the Serbs and Russians recognize the Palestine
>> they could certainly allow Kosovo similar international privileges.
>>
>> Kosovo is recognized by the US as an "independent state" (see:
>> http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm) and like the EU the US
>> maintains diplomatic relations with Kosovo. Unfortunately, the
>> DXCC Rules (see: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/DXCC/DXCC%20Rules.pdf)
>> do not include the US DOS "Independent States in the World" listing as
>> a qualifying option for a "Political (Rule 1) Entity".
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector
>
_________________
Topband Reflector
_________________
Topband Reflector
|