Re: Scarborough Reef
|
Dave AA6YQ
* more AA6YQ comments below
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I didn’t state that it was underwater. I only stated that *if* it was underwater it should be removed. This is a conditional statement, not a declaration. * If a DXCC entity no longer satisfies the DXCC criteria, it should be removed. I doubt that anyone disagrees with this assertion. * If the status of a current entity with respect to the DXCC criteria is unknown, then it should remain a current entity until objective proof of its failure to satisfy the criteria has been presented to the responsible ARRL committee. * To speculate in the absence of definitive information - "Difficult is one thing. Impossible is another." - is extremely unreasonable, to the point of being absurd. 73, Dave, AA6YQ On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 7:23 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below Difficult is one thing. Impossible is another. If it is truly under water with no hope of any future operation ever being able to comply with the rules when activating it, even with permission of authorities then Scarborough should be deleted. And the rules should be clear about what happens in that case, even with grandfathered entities. But keeping an entity on the list that is permanently underwater is extremely unreasonable, to the point of being absurd. + Please cite your proof that BS7 is permanently underwater. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
|
|