Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site akgua.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!glc
From: glc@akgua.UUCP (G.L. Cleveland [Lindsay])
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.news.group
Subject: Re: new group net.ham-radio.packet -- history/apology/future
Message-ID: <1496@akgua.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 15-Jun-85 00:18:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: akgua.1496
Posted: Sat Jun 15 00:18:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 09:26:05 EDT
References: <459@mtunh.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Technologies/Bell Labs, Atlanta
Lines: 32
Xref: watmath net.ham-radio:2833 net.news.group:3151

Poor Jim!  He tries to do it "by the rules" and what happens...
Murphy Strikes!!  I hope this time the "word" gets sent to all
sites in the prescribed manner.

Anyway...

>Solution-- So, let's try again ...  Other than the flames on  procedural
>issues,  does  anyone  have  any  real  problems  with  the  creation of
>net.ham-radio.packet?  I am already on the mailing list and  am  getting
>the  info,  but several others around here would like to read it too.  I
>did get several positive replies (from those who saw my first  posting).
>It  seems  (to me) that there is sufficient interest for a newsgroup and
>it should be a subgroup under net.ham-radio.  I guess at this point  the
>new  group  exists on some sites, but I know from the flames that others
>have removed it.  

>Jim Kutsch  ihnp4!mtunh!jak or ihnp4!mtunh!ky2d!jak
>ATTIS Holmdel, NJ  (201) 834-2092

My site (akgua) did not remove the new newsgroup.  I am all for it!

The fact that it needs to be a separate newsgroup for ARPA and/or
mailing list gatewaying gives it even more reason for existance.
And from what I have seen and heard to date, it is a growing topic.
However, the non-packeteers who avidly read net.ham-radio would
appreciate not being deluged by packet-related articles.

Cheers,
  Lindsay

Lindsay Cleveland  (akgua!glc) (404) 447-3909   Cornet 583-3909
AT&T Technologies/Bell Laboratories ... Atlanta, Ga