| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 74.1 | one negative vote | MPGS::MCCLURE | Why Me??? | Tue Feb 27 1990 16:17 | 8 |
| Here's one vote for keeping them seperate. No offense to the
participants in VETERANS, but I think their issues are different
from active reservists. I will say that I've never looked into
that file, mainly because that is my perception. A defense_issues
-reserve_forces merger would be more logical to me, but then I've
never opened that file either.
Bob Mc
|
| 74.2 | Negative | KAOA01::LAPLANTE | Spaceman Biff....my hero | Tue Feb 27 1990 16:45 | 12 |
|
Another vote for keeping them separate.
I also believe that most of things that would be of interest to
veterans are not really applicable to reservists. I have looked
into it and found that it really is a very strong US oriented
conference, while this one is much more international.
I follow Defense_issues regularly and would not care to see this
conference merged either. The topics just do not mesh well.
Roger
|
| 74.3 | Make that three in the negative | DOCSRV::STARIN | There's something about a sailor | Tue Feb 27 1990 16:52 | 15 |
| Re merger:
Make that three negative votes.....I think this conference is truly
unique because:
a. It focuses primarily on Reservists at DEC
b. It is international in scope
My vote is to keep it that way.
FWIW,
Mark
RMC USNR
|
| 74.4 | now you got four | SSGVAX::LEONHARDT | DDs Bs & GG1s | Tue Feb 27 1990 17:08 | 1 |
| no
|
| 74.5 | the count is now five | LUDWIG::WILLIS | | Tue Feb 27 1990 18:12 | 2 |
| don't merge
|
| 74.6 | 6 to 0 | KYOA::SCHWARTZR | | Tue Feb 27 1990 21:56 | 5 |
| NO
I read all three files, but my vote is still NO.
RSS
|
| 74.7 | And then there were seven | ASDS::AIKEN | Old Neptunes never die | Wed Feb 28 1990 00:33 | 8 |
| Maintain separate but equal. The only commonality is the military
themes of the three conferences. As already stated, active reservists
and no longer active veterans may share some common interests, but the
separate conferences allows for focused interchange of ideas and
discussions of immediate relevance and concern to those of us who are
still actively serving.
While I enjoy VETERANS, I often feel I have little to add.
|
| 74.8 | The no's have it. | DUCK::NASHD | Whatever happened to Capt. Beaky? | Wed Feb 28 1990 11:47 | 4 |
| Well, my friends, the no's have it. There will be no merger, though
I did agree to cross-referencing pointers.
Dave
|
| 74.9 | | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Wed Feb 28 1990 12:57 | 20 |
|
Sorry, but another "No" vote - I used to read VETERANS, but found it very
Americo-centric and very much wrapped up in the American veterans organisations.
A very valuable conference, but I cannot visualise how we could produce a new
conference with international scope, as well as interest to those who are
veterans (and do we limit that to those who are veterans of "foreign wars" or
include those with peace time service?) reservists, and even perhaps those
interested in aspects of service in the full-time professional armed forces
today (I dare say some of us have children of the appropriate age :-))
So lets keep it seperate: VETERANS for the vets (do they welcome British Legion
members - my earlier casual reading was that it was explicitly for VFW members),
this file for the reservists and reserve forces issues, and perhaps
DEFENCE_ISSUES and the recently formed naval conference, for the active service
issues, though some of those are coming up here...
Besides I get much quicker access to this than I do for VETERANS...
/. Ian .\
|
| 74.10 | pritchardj "a sapper at heart" | SNOC01::PRITCHARDJ | | Mon Mar 26 1990 07:49 | 6 |
| I am a veteran as well as an active reservist having come from the
Australian regular Army. Could someone give the title for the Veterans
notesfile please.
John
|
| 74.11 | HIT KP7 OR <SELECT> | BRABAM::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Mon Mar 26 1990 12:52 | 1 |
| ABACUS::VETERANS
|