Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Organizing

Expand Messages
  • ozob99 <ozob99@yahoo.com>
    ... proposed ... include within ... related to ... do we ... discuss on ... communications ... like ... but ... complex ... civil ... of a big ... members ...
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "Albert LaFrance"
      <albertjlafrance@c...> wrote:
      > Several people have brought up important questions concerning the
      proposed
      > organization to promote our interests.
      >
      > One of these concerns the range of subject areas we choose to
      include within
      > our "charter". Specifically, should we be inclusive of anything
      related to
      > the Cold War, or should we focus more narrowly on communications, or
      do we
      > want to be somewhere in between?
      >
      > For example, one researcher noted that some of the facilities we
      discuss on
      > the list are not primarily communications stations, although
      communications
      > is a vital element of their operations. For example, installations
      like
      > Mount Weather most definitely *provide* and *use* communications,
      but
      > communications is only one component of their broader and more
      complex
      > missions.
      >
      > To people studying some aspects of Cold War infrastructure, like
      civil
      > defense and missile systems, communications may be simply one slice
      of a big
      > pie, co-equal with many other aspects of the topic. Some potential
      members
      > may be students of foreign affairs, defense policy or domestic
      politics, and
      > thus will be interested in communications networks only for the
      clues they
      > provide on those topics. Others may be interested solely in the
      technical
      > details of specific system or facility.
      >
      > My inclination would be to define the organization's mission as
      broadly as
      > possible. This list seems to function very well with a wide range
      of
      > interests represented, and exchanges of information among people
      working on
      > different aspects of the Cold War field can be very enlightening.
      If the
      > organization is structured as an "umbrella" group, it should be able
      to
      > accommodate the needs and contributions of a diverse membership.
      >
      > Albert


      It seems discussing "Coldwar" comms without exploring the cold war
      function or mission the comms are used for is incomplete &
      unfulfilling...i think members are just as interested in the purpose &
      users of the comms as with the nature of the transmission.
    • Black Max
      I think a more broad catch-all would be Cold War Infrastructure... Regards, Jason Swift KE4KYY ... __________________________________________________ Do you
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I think a more broad catch-all would be Cold War
        Infrastructure...
        Regards,
        Jason Swift
        KE4KYY
        --- Albert LaFrance <albertjlafrance@...> wrote:
        > Several people have brought up important questions
        > concerning the proposed
        > organization to promote our interests.
        >
        > One of these concerns the range of subject areas we
        > choose to include within
        > our "charter". Specifically, should we be
        > inclusive of anything related to
        > the Cold War, or should we focus more narrowly on
        > communications, or do we
        > want to be somewhere in between?
        >
        > For example, one researcher noted that some of the
        > facilities we discuss on
        > the list are not primarily communications stations,
        > although communications
        > is a vital element of their operations. For
        > example, installations like
        > Mount Weather most definitely *provide* and *use*
        > communications, but
        > communications is only one component of their
        > broader and more complex
        > missions.
        >
        > To people studying some aspects of Cold War
        > infrastructure, like civil
        > defense and missile systems, communications may be
        > simply one slice of a big
        > pie, co-equal with many other aspects of the topic.
        > Some potential members
        > may be students of foreign affairs, defense policy
        > or domestic politics, and
        > thus will be interested in communications networks
        > only for the clues they
        > provide on those topics. Others may be interested
        > solely in the technical
        > details of specific system or facility.
        >
        > My inclination would be to define the organization's
        > mission as broadly as
        > possible. This list seems to function very well
        > with a wide range of
        > interests represented, and exchanges of information
        > among people working on
        > different aspects of the Cold War field can be very
        > enlightening. If the
        > organization is structured as an "umbrella" group,
        > it should be able to
        > accommodate the needs and contributions of a diverse
        > membership.
        >
        > Albert
        >
        >
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
        http://mailplus.yahoo.com
      • Paul Rosa
        Albert: I m a contrarian thinker. Even though I m not one of the illeterari of the coldwarcomms crowd, and I m just an innocent spectator who is trying to
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Albert:

          I'm a contrarian thinker. Even though I'm not one of the illeterari of
          the coldwarcomms crowd, and I'm just an innocent spectator who is trying
          to learn, I say the group's interest is best focused on the core
          technologies and systems that are of interest to the most members. By
          focusing on just one topic that numerous members are interested in, the
          group and our subject matter can land like a ton of bricks on the world
          stage. If we land amidst a modicum of mediocrity, I think we'll hardly
          be noticed. So let's go balls-to-the-walls and be a total affront to
          everybody!

          Paul Rosa
          Harpers Ferry, WV

          Albert LaFrance wrote:

          > Several people have brought up important questions concerning the
          > proposed
          > organization to promote our interests.
          >
          > One of these concerns the range of subject areas we choose to include
          > within
          > our "charter". Specifically, should we be inclusive of anything
          > related to
          > the Cold War, or should we focus more narrowly on communications, or
          > do we
          > want to be somewhere in between?
          >
          > For example, one researcher noted that some of the facilities we
          > discuss on
          > the list are not primarily communications stations, although
          > communications
          > is a vital element of their operations. For example, installations
          > like
          > Mount Weather most definitely *provide* and *use* communications, but
          > communications is only one component of their broader and more complex
          >
          > missions.
          >
          > To people studying some aspects of Cold War infrastructure, like civil
          >
          > defense and missile systems, communications may be simply one slice of
          > a big
          > pie, co-equal with many other aspects of the topic. Some potential
          > members
          > may be students of foreign affairs, defense policy or domestic
          > politics, and
          > thus will be interested in communications networks only for the clues
          > they
          > provide on those topics. Others may be interested solely in the
          > technical
          > details of specific system or facility.
          >
          > My inclination would be to define the organization's mission as
          > broadly as
          > possible. This list seems to function very well with a wide range of
          > interests represented, and exchanges of information among people
          > working on
          > different aspects of the Cold War field can be very enlightening. If
          > the
          > organization is structured as an "umbrella" group, it should be able
          > to
          > accommodate the needs and contributions of a diverse membership.
          >
          > Albert
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • mwj116@psu.edu
          My opinion would be that the organization would focus on the specific topics covered here, which would generally be considered to be C3 issues...command,
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            My opinion would be that the organization would focus on the
            specific topics covered here, which would generally be considered
            to be C3 issues...command, control, and communications systems
            related to the cold war. That would include facilities such as Mt
            Weather, other government COG facilities, SAC HQ, the Notch,
            SAGE, etc in addition to the AT&T and WU facilities.

            This way we would avoid inclusion of weapons systems, which are
            well covered by the Nike people, National Atomic Museaum, Chuck
            Hanson, etc. I'd also suggest including the Warning function (which
            might be a C or an I function, depending on how you look at it).

            I think that making contact with the FAS might be useful since they
            include a lot of historical C3 systems on their web site.

            Mike

            Mike Jacobs, N3MJ
            Antenna and RF Engineering Laboratory
            Penn State University
            State College, PA
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.