Re: LF: Re: [rsgb_lf_group] Getting rid of Black Sheep

["Chris" <c.ashby435@btinternet.com>]

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