Re: [HCDX]: Country List Debate
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [HCDX]: Country List Debate
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Ralph Brandi wrote:
> >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
Well spoken, Ralph!
Just briefly to comment what Klaus Elsebusch wrote that here we have a
list for Europeans (EDXC) and a list for Americans (NASWA). Everybody and
every club is of course to pick up what they like more. I know that the
EDXC list is a result of careful and long-time work, so I see no need to
change its main principles. Details can be discussed, of course.
Thus I don't see any need to take the radio amateurs' list DXCC to this
discussion. Their principles differ so much to what we are used to. Like
Ralph said there are oddities in the NASWA list, and also in the EDXC
lists (enclaves which I don't understand myself), but there are much more
oddities (many "artificial" island countries) in the DXCC list. I recall
that best hams in the world have around 320 countries; maybe Klaus or some
other hams on our list can confirm? Best BC DXers have around 230 verified
countries according to the EDXC list.
Yesterday I mentioned to be back with the "EDXC list to the
net" discussion this week. I have to postpone this maybe with two weeks,
as I want to have Anker Petersen's opinion (Anker is auditor/supervisor of
EDXC) and he'll be back home from a trip around 3rd of Dec. I sent my
private mail to a few persons, and of course will also wait at least for
Ole Alm's opinion.
So it looks like I'll be back with this item after the Finnish
Independence Day (6th of Dec). Thank you for your patience.
This is a message from Risto Vahakainu <vahakain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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