Hi Ron and the group
Like mine (4W6EB) Thor's authorization for 4W6MM expired May 20, 2002,
not March 20, 2002, so you gain two more months !
73
Jose CT1EEB
http://www.qsl.net/ct1eeb
http://www.qsl.net/ed1ons
"Besides, I'm MUCH more irritated to find out that 4W6MM's authorization to
operate e
I have always been upset about the application of approval for various UN
ops. It almost seems like if a UN operation is DXCC-ok in 4W, then I should
be able to go to any UN-owned building anywhere in the world, and with UN
permission there, operate in that country and have it DXCC-count. One
BTW, the person who decides that a brand new entity is ok for DXCC should
not also be in the first group to activate that entity. If a person wants
to operate and activate, he/she should pass the final decision of ok/ no-ok
on to others, or a committee, maybe, uh? Maybe that is already the wa
AND, to carry it one step further, if I'm not mistaken, in the
Diplomatic world, any Embassy, no matter where, is considered "the soil" of
the country represented by that particular Embassy.therefore... (well
you get my drift).
73
Tony, W4FOA
PS: How is it that these "select" UN entities b
AND, to carry it one step further, if I'm not mistaken, in the
Diplomatic world, any Embassy, no matter where, is considered "the soil" of
the country represented by that particular Embassy.therefore... (well
you get my drift).
73, Tony, W4FOA
See DXCC Rule II.4.a.i
PS: How is it that thes
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, John Warren wrote:
>
> Re S.M.O.M. - Lot of history behind DXCC. There are many Entities
> which might not qualify under current rules. See DXCC Rules II.5, a
> and c.
>
SMOM is still considered a sovereign nation, and is still considered the
smallest sovereign nation on
Charles Harpole wrote:
>
> I have always been upset about the application of approval for various UN
> ops. It almost seems like if a UN operation is DXCC-ok in 4W, then I should
> be able to go to any UN-owned building anywhere in the world, and with UN
> permission there, operate in that countr
Charles Harpole wrote:
>
> BTW, the person who decides that a brand new entity is ok for DXCC should
> not also be in the first group to activate that entity. If a person wants
> to operate and activate, he/she should pass the final decision of ok/ no-ok
> on to others, or a committee, maybe, uh?
I stand corrected, but *sigh* it still doesn't make my (July 02) IARU 'test
QSO any more valid for DXCC.
73, ron wn3vaw
AJ: "Did you ever hear of Evel Kneival?"
Lev: "I never saw Star Wars"
-- Armageddon
- Original Message -
From: "Jose E. Ribeiro Sa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ron Not
Ah, but things are not always equal. There are UN operations, and then
there are UN operations.
The 4W/UNAET situation I didn't have a problem with, as the UN was actually
administering a physical territory -- a signifcant one at that. And it was
just during the political "transition" period dur
For what it's worth:
In a conversation with Bill Moore yesterday, He advised that in His
opinion, the status of 4W is not likely to change.
Relax!
Age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
Outbound mail checked by Norton Anti-Virus 2003
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
Can anyone inform me if the Patriot Act or the laws setting up the Homeland
Security apparatus or any other laws which specifically name amateur radio
as a national emergency communication resource. If so, what is stated?
I tried to search web and also to read the Patriot Act to no avail. Help
At 23:25 + 19/06/2003, Charles Harpole wrote:
Can anyone inform me if the Patriot Act or the laws setting up the
Homeland Security apparatus or any other laws which specifically
name amateur radio as a national emergency communication resource.
If so, what is stated?
I tried to search web a
13 matches
Mail list logo
