Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30022 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2002 08:37:12 -0000 Received: from murphys.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.225) by mailstore with SMTP; 13 Nov 2002 08:37:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 26587 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2002 08:36:43 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 13 Nov 2002 08:36:43 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 18Bt02-0004I9-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:35:50 +0000 Received: from [194.73.73.92] (helo=carbon.btinternet.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18Bt01-0004I0-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:35:49 +0000 Received: from host213-122-174-6.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.174.6] helo=presario-1920) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #15) id 18Bt00-0007VS-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:35:49 +0000 From: "John W Gould" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:40:05 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: Subject: LF: RE: RE: RE: Puzzles Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02, USER_AGENT_OUTLOOKversion=2.42 Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group The reflector followed a manual e-mail, "snail" mail and packet exchange that I operated, between those interested in experimenting on 73kHz. That is before 136kHz was authorised here in the UK. As such it didn't have any strict rules, except that it would be related to LF. Given the broad user base that the reflector now has I'm quite prepared to upload a general AUP for guidance to all on the purpose, scope and etiquette - the question is whether we broaden the scope of the reflector as I proposed, or leave it less well defined, but "weild a gavel" if off-topic issues become too intrusive, as Steve Thompson suggested. This in effect is what I did earlier this week, but it did gather some backlash. 73 John, G3WKL > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]On Behalf Of Ashlock,William > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 04:11 > To: 'rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org' > Subject: LF: RE: RE: Puzzles > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > I also find the puzzles interesting but I this is not what the LF > reflector is meant to be used for. > > I'm not sure what the LF reflector is meant to be used for. Are there are > some rules that I have failed to see posted? > > > The future problem could be that in allowing this type of mail maybe > other types of mail may be sent > > therefore detracting from the whole purpose of the LF reflector. > > What is the purpose of the LF reflector? Maybe if there is no set of rules > we could jointly agree on a set? > > Bill Ashlock > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet > Managed Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further > information visit http://www.worldcom.com > >