[CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP

[Jim Jordan]

Actually, that's not as far out as it may seem at first glance. I recall 
several years back I had to go through a separate process to get a judgment 
levied on a resident of the Lumbee Nation here in North Carolina. The deputy 
sheriff in the county in which the reservation exists was not permitted to 
serve papers there. I'm sure it's an even bigger deal out west.

The definition of being a separate political entity within the federal 
system and having a degree of self government applies equally to the tribal 
nations and the inhabitants of the District of Columbia as well as the 
residents of the 50 "states". Other than having moved there, is there a 
reason of affinity which explains why the Washington football team has such 
a non-PC name???

I suppose if there are active contesters in the reservations and they asked 
to be treated as a "state" for NAQP purposes, I'd support their application 
also, but not simply to create an expedition entity. DX entities is a whole 
'nother proposition and I'll decline comment there.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Milt -- N5IA" <n5ia at zia-connection.com>
To: "Jim Jordan" <k4qpl at nc.rr.com>; "Paul Stoetzer" <n8hm at arrl.net>; 
<cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] DC and NAQP


> 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