[Dx-qsl] 7O1A Yemen in 1996

[ALAN ZACK]

Oh Yeah! I have his QSL for P5RS7 which was my first North Korea QSL. Nice
of him to send a QSL for my contact with him.
K7ACZ

-----Original Message-----
From: dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Ron Lago
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:39 AM
To: dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] 7O1A Yemen in 1996

You mean like these people?
http://dokufunk.org/upload/xy0rr.pdf?PHPSESSID=4bd92b9f419c55b78ae9d7599a234
ee5

Check out the operators who knew they were not in Burma, but went on to 
operate many Dxpeditions that counted...right Harry?
73
Ron







On 4/11/2011 11:22 AM, HK3CW wrote:
> I agree but go tell that to the contest cheaters, its a hobby and there's
> more cheaters that DXCC entities!
> There are cheaters everywhere! Like if I contact a rare island I would
like
> for that station to be actually ON the island instead of on the boat NEXT
to
> the island. Or if I contact a station, I'd really like for that station to
> be legal not some bogus callsign pirated by somebody...
>
> 73 de HK3CW  Rob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard J. Fiero II W5TFW"<joeyw5tfw at gmail.com>
> To:<dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] 7O1A Yemen in 1996
>
>
>> IMHO,
>>
>> this is a HOBBY,  why does it have to be such a LEGAL nightmare !
>>
>>
>>
>> Joey
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ron Notarius W3WN"<wn3vaw at verizon.net>
>> To:<nt5c at texas.net>
>> Cc:<dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] 7O1A Yemen in 1996
>>
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> IIRC, the central ministry denied that the license issued by the branch
>>> office was proper or legal.  So that's one big difference.
>>>
>>> I have had many long conversations with a former US Air Force officer
too
>>> and from Dayton over the years, and one of our favorite topics was
>>> hashing
>>> out the 7O1 situatiions.  He told me that when he was active duty and
>>> working in that part of the world, it was not uncommon for things to be
>>> done on a handshake... and if something became public knowledge that
>>> could
>>> be embarressing, or worse, could cost someone to have their head
>>> separated
>>> from the rest of their body, it was thus very easy for any public
>>> official
>>> to deny everything.
>>>
>>> In other words, and I'm speculating here, if someone involved with
>>> national security took afront to the 7O1A operation, it is easier for
the
>>> people in San'aa to deny all (and shift the blame) rather than stick
>>> their
>>> necks out (almost literally) over the license issued in Aden.  And IF
>>> that
>>> is the case -- remember, I'm speculating here, I am not saying that this
>>> is fact -- who do you believe, when it comes to determing if the
>>> operators
>>> had a valid license to operate?
>>>
>>> And IIRC there have been other situations over the years where a
>>> government has retroactively cancelled or otherwise invalidated existing
>>> licenses (the 9U situation a few years back comes to mind), so this is
>>> not
>>> unprecedented.  I'm not saying it's right or it's fair, but it happens.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>>
>>> Apr 11, 2011 01:26:17 PM, nt5c at texas.net wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 11, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Ron W3WN wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have been told by a reliable source that, in essence, the hold up
>>>> on 7O1YGF was the lack of documentation -- ANY documentation -- that
>>>> showed that they were in the country legally, and/or that they had
>>>> permission to import the equipment they operated with, either of
>>>> which would imply that they had permission to operate.
>>> That's why I found the rejection of 7O1A odd. I've not heard anyone
>>> question that Franz and Zorro were legally in Yemen (Aden), or that
>>> they had permission to operate from the Ministry of Communication
>>> office there (perhaps it wasn't written?). It's really not our
>>> problem if, after the fact, the Sana'a central Ministry office
>>> resented what their Aden branch had done.
>>>
>>> Ah well - thanks for confirming that I'm not missing one guys!
>>>
>>> John, NT5C.