Message-ID: <010101c09c3d$795c3cc0$0301a8c0@steve>
From: "Steve Olney" <ollaneg@zeta.org.au>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <000201c09c33$feb1bc60$784e7ad5@default>
Subject: LF: Re: Reflector split?...please No.
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 06:35:28 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

G'day All,

Watching all the pushing and shoving on this reflector has also made me
think of the splitting issue.    My two cents worth (not worth much in
Australian pesos at the moment ;-) are as follows:-

1.    Using markers in the subject line like [QRSS] etc, to filter out
sounds like a good idea.   There a PIC reflector somewhere that uses this
idea and I thought that this would be good.   In practice it was annoying as
there were many posts to inappropriate sections because you rely on the
correct classification by someone else which may not line up with your
definitions.    I found that I was looking at the other "non-relevant
sections" just make sure you weren't missing something.    That defeated the
whole purpose for me.     Why not keep the present scheme but just clearly
identify what you are addressing in the subject line ?      The disadvantage
of both approaches is that you are still downloading a lot of stuff that
perhaps you don't want but are paying for in downloading costs.

2.   The point that we need an entry point for beginners and the mass of
high tech stuff would not doubt be discouraging for many is a strong one.
Why don't we all agree on some common reflector site just for LF DSP ?    We
could move all our high tech traffic to the selected reflector and take the
load off this one.    There is then nothing stopping people from subscribing
to what they want (both if they want).    Those who don't want the high tech
DSP stuff could avoid it - those who want both can subscribe to both.    The
only plea I would make is to *not* engage in forwarding/cross-posting as
this is especially annoying.   If you want to make sure nothing is missed
then a periodic reminder on each reflector of the existence of the other
would suffice.   This allows the reader to decide what ends up in their
mailbox.    Things like bandplans could still be agreed on and distributed.
Bandplans were in place long before the Internet.

Suitable sites could be yahoo (they have taken over egroups and now require
some intrusive questions to be answered),   qsl.net, the Amrad reflector, or
even the down-under ZL/VK group (although that is yahoo).     The LowFer
reflector is also available and there is an atmosphere of innovation present
amongst its denizens.

Why don't we agree on one site - publicise periodically where it is and make
the move ?    Subscribe to one or the other or both and get what you want.
There is no perfect solution but there has to be a better way than spending
time beating each other over the head about definitions and fine "legal"
points.    Better to be operating and experimenting !!!!

73s Steve Olney (VK2ZTO/AXSO - QF56IK : Lat -33 34 07, Long +150 44 40)
=============================================
HomePage URLs:
http://www.qsl.net/vk2zto
http://www.zeta.org.au/~ollaneg

Containing:-
ULF, ELF, VLF & LF Experimentation
InfraSonic Experimentation
Laser Comms DX
Amateur Radio Astronomy
=============================================