us.military.air-force idea

Hum, okay, anyone interested in seeing about getting things ready to do
a RFD for a new group to be called.

sci.military.airforce

Is there enough interested persons to post and suuch?

Mike
Alaska

The USAF has only been around for 50 years. What history?

There's barely enough aviation postings *here* to justify another
group.

As an Air Force member, I resent that remark. We have a history, we just
revise and rewrite it every couple of years or so.

By the way, I for one would be interested in an Air Force history newsgroup.

newsgroup.

I don't know exactly where you are posting from but you may wish to just
post to us.config and let us know who you are. And bring your friends if
you want it to have a chance of success.

Then do it! I felt the same about Naval Aviation. Then I created
R.A.M.N. in '96. I dare to say it has been a success.

***********************************************
ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
Anti-spam measures in action.
For e-mail response delete "nospam"

***********************************************

[newsgroups trimmed to G5]

He and his friends might also wish to start posting
about the Air Force to us.military.history to see if they
can generate enough traffic to warrant a separate group.

speaking for myself alone from
hkt@xnet.com

That's a dead group. And you already saw how the Army bunch wants to treat
AF types. If a group that discusses AF type history etc. is necessary,
better for it to be free standing like some of the Navy groups that are
quite a bit more successful throughout the internet than the Army ones.

It's not that we don't like AF types. we just don't like frauds (like you
Daryl).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode test 33Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

1 19th November 13:51 abrigon gusiq External User Posts: 1	us.military.air-force idea Hum, okay, anyone interested in seeing about getting things ready to do a RFD for a new group to be called. sci.military.airforce Is there enough interested persons to post and suuch? Mike Alaska

2 22nd November 16:40 joe delphi External User Posts: 1	us.military.air-force idea The USAF has only been around for 50 years. What history?

3 24th November 04:23 scott ferrin External User Posts: 1	us.military.air-force idea There's barely enough aviation postings here to justify another group.

4 24th November 04:26 christopher reynolds External User Posts: 1	us.military.air-force idea As an Air Force member, I resent that remark. We have a history, we just revise and rewrite it every couple of years or so.

5 25th November 17:39 christopher reynolds External User Posts: 1	us.military.air-force idea By the way, I for one would be interested in an Air Force history newsgroup.

6 25th November 17:39 admin External User Posts: 1	us.military.air-force idea newsgroup. I don't know exactly where you are posting from but you may wish to just post to us.config and let us know who you are. And bring your friends if you want it to have a chance of success.

8 25th November 17:41 henrietta k thomas External User Posts: 1	us.military.air-force idea [newsgroups trimmed to G5] He and his friends might also wish to start posting about the Air Force to us.military.history to see if they can generate enough traffic to warrant a separate group. speaking for myself alone from hkt@xnet.com

9 25th November 17:41 admin External User Posts: 1	us.military.air-force idea That's a dead group. And you already saw how the Army bunch wants to treat AF types. If a group that discusses AF type history etc. is necessary, better for it to be free standing like some of the Navy groups that are quite a bit more successful throughout the internet than the Army ones.

10 25th November 17:42 jay t. beatty External User Posts: 1	us.military.air-force idea It's not that we don't like AF types. we just don't like frauds (like you Daryl).