Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mtunh.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtunh!jak
From: jak@mtunh.UUCP (Jim Kutsch)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.news.group
Subject: Re: new group net.ham-radio.packet -- history/apology/future
Message-ID: <460@mtunh.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 09:27:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtunh.460
Posted: Mon Jun 17 09:27:27 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 07:45:09 EDT
References: <459@mtunh.UUCP>, <315@gatech.CSNET>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.ham-radio:2839 net.news.group:3161

We (those involved) do not want a "mod." group.  We  have  had  net.ham-
radio  for  years  and  have been successful in exchanging news with the
ARpa info-hams list.  All we want to do is create a subdivision.

I do not understand why this is of such interest to all those who  don't
read  net.ham-radio  in  the  first place!!!  We have subdivisions under
net.religion, net.nlang and several others.  If you really want me to do
it  I can post numerous private mail messages in support of the net.ham-
radio.packet group.  Is this really necessary?  The idea here is just  a
subdivision  of an existing group to better serve those who are involved
in the group.

Also, Mr. Spafford, I answered your (somewhat presumptuous) private mail
to  me  when  you did the rmgroup.  However, I have not seen a reply.  I
guess you would rather have  all  net  folks  read  our  correspondence?
Rhetorical  question:  why  does *EVERYTHING* on Usenet have to generate
50Kb of net traffic before  anything  can  be  done?   The  overhead  of
discussing  procedural issues seems to almost exceed the real traffic in
some cases!

Cheers, Jim