DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=btinternet.com;
  h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index;
  b=pCzE9qRHJywuWEndhPbO0CVQ8XJGCk8QVDjzzP069E1t6y9dXzrJZcWN3AkJoaJNQY0bXXQYuXGnl8ll9qZ5gCFzg9t3ZKdfcTMlRgf7n300CSLnZBZ4UhPB9Tku1Stj9MZnv/AaAKw7uBHuq+OVTk8ZNvSj2tsyeJRgEdw2uLA=  ;
From: "Ken" <ken.h.wright@btinternet.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <CAA8k23RbV8iTukrJUkgO07v+AAMF=PiewOzyFBJiKOqoVB=AnQ@mail.gmail.com> <D015BEAA80DA43E1B44982E5AB7C5E39@MaynePC> <4FCB96A9.4010009@usa.net> <4FCB9F34.7040604@legal-medicine.de> <4FCBCC8B.9050308@usa.net> <77A08BCA-E9AB-404B-B425-BFD3564F66FE@thelortons.co.uk> <535C7AB088034F3CAF4C51D1FF382816@AGB> <4FCC6900.70001@psk31.plus.com> <0810E17DF6EF45429E4EB7D3CF23B190@IBM7FFA209F07C>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:11:46 +0100
Message-ID: <E2F2C6C025EB4D4980E6D07219EFFDE5@lindavideo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0810E17DF6EF45429E4EB7D3CF23B190@IBM7FFA209F07C>
Thread-Index: Ac1CKPICLoC10g31RBSE64amgY10XgACPhrA
Subject: RE: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Getting rid of Black Sheep
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m215.1 ; domain : btinternet.com DKIM : pass  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40574fcc7c3f714d
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


Gentlemen.
I think it a very good idea to have a technical/qso split, this is why I
voted to keep both. I would also be very useful if possible to be able to
contact members direct through either site on technical issues. I have sent
this message via both sites for those who have not migrated 

73
Ken  M0KHW

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
[mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: 04 June 2012 09:06
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Getting rid of Black Sheep

Yes, I agree too. It's the best piece of common sense there's been for a 
while about this. Well done Clive!
Chris, G4AYT.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "g3zjo" <g3zjo@psk31.plus.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Getting rid of Black Sheep


> Yes its a good compromise and I never feel pain or distress when receiving

> mails from two sources personally.
>
> Eddie
>
> On 04/06/2012 08:40, Graham wrote:
>> Yes  'Flash' traffic  only  on the  ref
>>
>> G.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Clive Lorton" <clive@thelortons.co.uk>
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:04 AM
>> To: <rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk>; <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
>> Subject: Re: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Getting rid of Black Sheep
>>
>>> Gentlemen,
>>>
>>> I'm beginning to think there has to be a place for both groups. 
>>> Blacksheep as it generally is now for QSO and signal reports and Yahoo 
>>> for technical discussion.  That way daily QSO information will not be 
>>> archived and design/construction projects can make full use of the 
>>> search function and files section of Yahoo.
>>>
>>> Just my two pence worth....
>>>
>>> Clive g8poc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2425/5043 - Release Date: 06/03/12
>>
>>
>
>