phd_jacquier@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (09/22/89)
>[rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) recently posted that: >|Right, it's hopeless to try and come up with a succinct name that >|would be meaningful to people who don't already know about the hobby. > >Agreed! AGREED... > >|But maybe 'rec.swl' is a little too succinct. I would go for >| rec.broadcast-dx rec.radio-dx rec.dx-broadcast rec.dx-radio The thing i hate about "rec.ham-radio" is to have to type it !!! We are not so much setting up a self-advertising campaign rather than deciding on a name we WILL HAVE TO TYPE to get in the group. The name should be short. REC.SWL was the first proposal made and it seems to still be the best so far.
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (09/23/89)
If the length of the name gets in your way, you are probably posting too often. Seriously, the only time people generally type in the name is when they are posting original articles. So far, any of the suggested expansions are better than SWL. rec.radio.dx sounded nicest to me, though. -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]