Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!IDA.ORG!roskos
From: roskos@IDA.ORG (Eric Roskos)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call for Discussion:  rec.radio.misc
Message-ID: <1990Feb7.043914.20545@IDA.ORG>
Date: 7 Feb 90 04:39:14 GMT
References: <2843249899@lewis.crd.ge.com>
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
Lines: 26

welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes:

>discussion will go on at least until after i finish counting votes
>for soc.history; i'm not inclined to collect votes on two
>proposals at once.  discussion should go on ONLY in news.groups,
>which is where followups to this article are directed.

Why have a "misc" group? There isn't enough discussion in
rec.radio.shortwave already; that is to say, discussion that would go
well in rec.radio.shortwave still occurs in rec.ham-radio.  One can
comment on a few articles in rec.radio.shortwave, then come back later
and see that you're the only one who's posted anything (resulting in
a lot of cancellations out of embarassment at the silence :-)).

Already a lot of the ham-radio folks say "we're interested in anything
to do with radio," and this group was created mostly for the topics that
were clearly not ham-radio (commercial shortwave, clandestine radio,
questions about receive-only equipment, etc).  I think
rec.radio.shortwave is a good idea -- I would never have expected to see
a posting from Havana Moon in rec.ham-radio -- but rec.radio.shortwave
is just getting started off itself.  Shucks, seems to me the topic is
fairly well covered by the two groups we have, and too many new groups
being created already.  Let's keep it the way it is. 

-- 
Eric Roskos (roskos@IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL)