[WVDXA] 5A7A -- the Untold Story

Fri Feb 9 11:28:55 PST 2007

Hey Clark,

I certainly didn't think you were picking on me.  I am of the opinion that the DXpedition ops had to know what the restrictions were before they received licenses.  I also believe they had sufficient time to to consider the situation and tell the officials in Libya, thanks but no thanks.  I believe thats what I would have done in this situation.  

I love to work a new country as much as anyone, but I draw the line when the rules are morally repugnant to me.  Obviously the DXpedition ops do not feel the way I do, and I respect their right to such a decision.  

I wasn't trying to bring anyone over to my way of thinking, which is what the Libyan officials did and the DXpedition ops accepted. I was merely expressing my opinion.

73,
Ron, KG8GW

-----Original Message-----
From: w8tn at ntelos.net
To: wvdxa at wvdxa.org
Sent: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WVDXA] 5A7A -- the Untold Story

Hal,

     I believe you missed the point of my response entirely.  I was making a very narrow comment about just ONE sentence of Ron's email.  You say, "No one is blaming the operators for following the rules . . " and that is EXACTLY what I was pointing out.  Ron said "I fault the dxpedition ops as much as anyone else for allowing this to happen."  So it appears he felt the DX'pedition operators were somehow to blame for this and I was ONLY pointing out they had no say about the rules which were placed on their license.  I was NOT making any argument that it was "right" for this to happen.  In fact, I agree with you that it is not right and I applaud your attempt to affect a change in this situation.

     But, being the world traveler that you are, I'm certain you know of conflicts which currently exist between many countries around the world.  The Peoples Republic of China (BY) does not recognize the Republic of China (BV), Israel (4X) does not recognize Palestine (E4), South Korea (HL) considers North Korea (P5) to be part of its territory, not a separate country and at least 20 Muslim countries do not recognize Israel.  Can you tell me that each of these countries DOES allow their amateurs to communicate with the other?  Or, might there be some regulation that prevents say a ham in Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iraq from communicating with a ham in Israel?  I don't know, do you?

     As for your quiz, I can name one other DX station who has been denied a QSO with another amateur station due to a licensing restriction in another country?  5A7A.  And the country imposing the restriction is Libya.  The Libyan ham operators can not contact the country of Israel and thus can not get DXCC credit for a 4X QSO.  It is a two-way street.

     However, none of this has anything to do with what I was attempting to point out.  I agree with you that this is not "right" but it IS the regulation placed upon the DX'pedition operators.  That is ALL I was trying to say.  I made no argument whatsoever that because it has been done in the past that it was "right" either then or now.  I only took issue with Ron's comment that he felt the DX'pedition operators were at fault for ". . .allowing this to happen."  We all have to play by the rules and many times they are not fair.  But, they are the rules - until we can change them.

     When Thailand was on the banned country list the ARRL would not credit for DXCC any QSO's a U.S. ham made with Thailand but a station in Canada or most any other country could count such a contact.  Same situation now with the 5A7A.  Not "right" then, or now, but that is the way the world works.  The country issuing the license has the right to permit or not permit what the ham operator can do with that license.

     My only purpose in joining this discussion was to educate those DX'ers who may not have been aware of the history of DX'ing on this issue and of the control the issuing country has over what the licensee can do.  W8DL and K8MN further elaborated on my point earlier today.

     If you still do not understand my position on this, contact me off the list either by phone, email or in person and I'll do my best to explain my position.  I'll say no more about it on the reflector.  

     And Ron, I wasn't picking on you.  Your comment is one I have seen from others as well.  That's why I decided to comment on it so that everyone could have a better understanding of the issue.

73, Clark, W8TN
No QSO's made with 5A7A
so I have no stake in this issue.

At 06:48 PM 2/7/2007 -0500, you wrote:

Sorry Clark, I don't see things any differently.  Just because things were done this way "several years ago" doesn't make it right.  We could have all kinds of fun with that logic.  Let me simply ask you to participate in a little quiz with a two part question:
1) It is December 2006, aside from amateur radio operators in Israel, please identify by callsign, one DX station who has been denied a QSO with another amateur station due to a licensing restriction in another country?
2) Please identify the country imposing that restriction? 

No one is blaming the operators for following the rules, but I do question their personal integrity and the fact that they succumbed to the political demands of the Libyan officials so they could participate in this operation.  But I see that the QSLs are arriving and most of the DX world is happy.  That's all that really matters isn't it?

And GW, I appreciated your response.  Good to hear from you on any subject OM.  We miss you!

73,
Hal
_______________________________________________
WVDXA mailing list
WVDXA at wvdxa.org
http://wvdxa.org/mailman/listinfo/wvdxa_wvdxa.org
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wvdxa.org/pipermail/wvdxa_wvdxa.org/attachments/20070209/ae200ab0/attachment.html 