Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.swl --> rec.dx-radio ? rec.broadcast-dx?
Message-ID: <45955@bbn.COM>
Date: 22 Sep 89 15:57:06 GMT
References: <9993@multimax.Encore.COM>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 21

In article <9993@multimax.Encore.COM> cook@encore.com writes:
>How about just rec.dx?



Before we get too carried away by names with "dx" in them (as opposed
to the original "rec.swl"), it's worth remembering that this group
would also include articles on shortwave *programs*, even if they come
from stations which aren't noteworthy dx "catches".  Anybody with any
kind of shortwave radio can listen to the BBC -- that would never be
called dx'ing.  But I would definitely like to see articles about
interesting BBC (world service) programs.  This is one of the weakest
aspects (from an swl point of view) of rec.ham-radio.

I take it that we're all agreed on the charter of this proposed group:
shortwave programs & schedules, shortwave broadcast-band dx, mw dx,
vhf/tv dx, scanners & scanning. It's just the name that's uncertain,
correct? I'm beginning to think we should be less fussy about getting
the "perfect" name and just pick the one that's the least problematic.
Since the charter is mostly about broadcast-band radio & tv, I still
like rec.broadcast-dx (the "dx" is there, but not overly emphasized).