Re: [HCDX]: Country List Debate

[Ralph Brandi <ralph@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>Referring to what Ralph Brandi wrote about the NASWA list, I'll just like
>to comment that the EDXC List (and I guess most or maybe all European
>lists) uses the principle of dividing to old and new countries. This does
>give benefit to older collectors, but also keeps on real life. While
>Ralph is proud of the NASWA way of doing this, I would myself find it very
>strange to start the hobby now and to be able to pick up
>not-anymore-existing countries like East Germany. 

And the reason for the confusion is probably the use of the word "countries".  In normal English, it has one meaning; in the context of a list, it can have a related, but slightly different meaning.  The NASWA list isn't the only one that suffers from this semantic confusion; the DXCC list also comes to mind, and suffers from this problem to a much greater extent.  Personally, I prefer the phrase "radio countries" to describe what the NASWA list does.

This may also be a result of cultural differences between America and Europe, egalitarianism and the relative importance given to status, age, etc., in the various cultures.  That's a potentially wide-ranging topic for discussion, and one I don't really want to go into in detail aside from mentioning it as a possible way of understanding the two different approaches.

>Another problem I find with the NASWA list is that it is only for
>shortwave. The EDXC List lists all countries and DX-countries in the world
>not depending on their current or earlier activity, and it is thus useful
>also for medium wave or FM Dxers etc. And it is not necessary to update
>the list when new "radio activity" is noted in some country. We just have
>to follow with the political changes (which of course are very problematic
>in some cases).

NASWA is a SWBC-only club, hence the focus on shortwave only.

Both of Risto's points are valid criticisms of the NASWA list.  And I feel that the implied criticism of the EDXC list that you may read into my original comments is also valid (I wasn't specifically directing them that way, but you can read them as a critique if you want).  I think there's merit in both approaches.  That's probably a good reason for the existence of more than one list.  NASWA's is purpose-built to fill the needs of our club's membership.  If others wish to use it, that's great.  If you feel one of the other lists suits your purposes better, that's great too.  Here in North America, the NASWA list appears to be widely accepted as a useful standard.  I get the impression that it has little impact in Europe, and that's okay with me.  I don't want anyone to get the impression that I was putting down the EDXC list or any other list, just explaining the philosophy behind the NASWA list.

In short, different strokes for different folks.  Feel free to choose whichever list most closely approximates your own philosophy, or make up one of your own.  It's only a hobby, after all.

Incidentally, I want to make clear that my comments here shouldn't be construed as an official NASWA position or anything, particularly since I don't sit on the committee in question.  I just happen to know a little something about the topic given my involvement with the club, but I'm posting as an individual.
-- 
Ralph Brandi  ralph@xxxxxxxxxx  webmaster@xxxxxxxxx  http://www.anarc.org/

Webmaster, Association of North American Radio Clubs

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a message from Ralph Brandi <ralph@xxxxxxxxxx>
to hard-core-dx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx list. To unsubscribe the list, send
"unsubscribe hard-core-dx" in mail body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For more information, please check http://www.kotalampi.com/hard-core-dx/
or email Risto Kotalampi, risto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------