Sorry for late coming to this - just got my email.
Can this operation be formally requested to be
reviewed? I would sure like to see it revisited.
Gary, N5PHT
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 11/13/04 11:24:32 AM Central
> Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > As I recall from being on the DX Advisory
> Committee at that time, we were
> > told it didn't count. I don't remember who told
> us, but my best guess would
> >
> > be K5FUV, Bill Kennemer, who ran the DX program at
> that time. Huge photos
> > were circulated showing the legs of the scaffolds
> were in the water and not
> > above the high water mark or mean high water mark.
> If those legs were in
> > the water, according to the rules if effect at the
> time, it should not
> > count.
> >
> > Now it seems as if it is being pawned off with the
> remark nobody requested
> > it count. I question the validity of that
> statement.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Charlie, W0YG..>>
> >
> >
>
> This raises a good point which I have been afraid to
> ask.
>
> Does the use of antennas mounted on a pier over
> water
> or kite supported wires with a metal 'contact' in
> salt water
> invalidate QSO's made with such antennas ?
>
> When with the nit-picking ever end?
>
> Tom N4KG
>
>
=====
**** <><> JESUS LOVES YOU AND SO DO I <><> ****
**** <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ****
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
http://njdxa.org/dx-chat
To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA
http://njdxa.org
