"Nick Atty" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:07:55 -0800, Adrian Stott wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:48:43 +0100,
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:55:16 +0000, "Derek.Moody"
wrote:

In article , Richard
wrote:

"Nick Smeltzer" wrote in message
...

rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to
uk.rec.boats.motor

Newsgroup line:
uk.boats.motor All aspects of motor boating in the UK

I thought uk.rec.boats.power was only for people who raced boats, as
in
power-boat racing. So, from my point of view, I think a change would
be
beneficial.

Imo 'Power' implies a motive force other than muscles or nature. In
other
words some sort of motor. The speed generated is immaterial.

So while I see no need for a change I won't object - but it feels like
pointless meddling.

Most motor boat owners post to uk.rec.waterways.
uk.rec.boats.power has never had much traffic.
uk.rec.waterways isn't the most obvious name for a boat group, yet
many boat owners use it.
Changing the name won't add to the traffic. I don't see a need for
further fragmentation of the uk.rec. boat groups.

As a subscriber to uk.rec.waterways, may I comment on the above?

"uk.rec.waterways" is the obvious name for a waterways group, which is
what the group in question is. In other words, it is concerned with
inland navigation and navigations.

It is not a boat group, although indeed a number of its subscribers
are boat owners.

Agreed. uk.rec.waterways is about 20% about boats, 15% about waterways
history and features and 65% about how to configure microsoft
newsreaders and avoid spam. At least, that's what it feels like.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)


Yes. A good idea. This group is seriously under used