Re: [HCDX]: Country List Debate
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [HCDX]: Country List Debate
At 13.27 24.11.1999 +0200, you 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.
Yes, every club or individual can of course count the whole world as one
DX country or every single tx location as one DX country. And this is a
hobby, but people seem to compete in this or at least compare the results.
For easier comparison it would be good if every club used the same list
throughout the world. After all we are more and more international
I personally would prefer the NASWA principle of old radio countries to be
used, but it seems that the main principles of EDXC list can't even be
discussed about. Anyway, I'd like to know if I am the only one in Europe
with this opinion. In my mind any small detail that would keep a newcomer
in the hobby would be good. There are already enough things which
discourage newcomes to continue in the hobby (diminishing number of
stations on SW, MW etc.). Old-timers have enough QSLs from stations not
existing any more, and that's something that can't be changed. But counting
DX countries is a different matter.
And anyway at least in Finland one can count two radio countries for
Vietnam, if one has heard a station from North Vietnam before unification
and now hears a station from ex-South Vietnam area. That's because they
were independent states. How is that elsewhere and acc. to EDXC list?
Couldn't that detail be widened to DX "countries", too?
This is a message from Mauno Ritola <ritola@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