[CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP

[Milt -- N5IA]

Hmmmm.

Along that line of thought the logical, parallel step is to include ALL the 
independent, sovereign nations within the borders of the contiguous USA.

I am referring to the Native American Nations.  Physically, many are larger 
than many of the eastern states.  Many of the "Res'" are much more populated 
than DC.

Just think of the opportunities of more multipliers, exotic expeditions to 
entities where no licensed amateurs reside, AND the awards (WAR = Worked All 
Reservations).

With my right tongue firmly implanted on the inside of my left cheek.

Mis dos centavos

de Milt, N5IA


-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Jordan
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 4:34 AM
To: Paul Stoetzer ; cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP

IMHO this(that DC is a top level political subdivision) is the one single,
logical, reasonable, equitable, fair (I'll stop here with synonyms) reason
that DC should be a separate multiplier. Not for historical reasons, not to
make it more fun for the residents, not to be another multiplier, not to
have another multiplier to chase, and not to bash, or honor, our UNITED
states government which is headquartered there. We could make all those
other arguments for making most any other state capital, city or county a
multiplier. If the contest sponsors will simply strike one blow for
CONSISTENCY, DC will be a multiplier and the gazillion electrons we are
rearranging in this thread would be irrelevant.

73,

Jim, K4QPL

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Stoetzer" <n8hm at arrl.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP


> They are. As is UN Headquarters.
>
> It's silly that a building in Manhattan is a multiplier but the District
> of Columbia is not. The fact is that the District of Columbia is the
> only separate top-level political subdivision within the United States
> or Canada that is not a multiplier in NAQP.
>
> 73,
>
> Paul, N8HM
>
> On 8/11/2012 10:16 AM, Aldewey at aol.com wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong but PR and VI ARE multipliers in NAQP.  Right?
>> What am I missing?
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Al, K0AD
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 8/11/2012 8:36:34 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> wn3vaw at verizon.net writes:
>>
>> Otherwise, one could make a case for PR & VI, as populated US
>> territories
>> within the generally accepted bounds of North America, should  also be
>> mults.
>> Is that what you want?  Or would that be an  unanticipated  consequence?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5206 - Release Date: 08/17/12