In . co.uk Dave Mayall writes:

As an owner of a motor boat (specifically a canal narrowboat), I
certainly don't feel a need for a group, and indeed would oppose such
a move on the basis that it might detract from uk.rec.waterways.

Why was this RFD not crossposted to uk.rec.waterways?

Since the remit of the proposed uk.rec.boats.motor is broadly the same as
for the present uk.rec.boats.power, then in principle its effect on
uk.rec.waterways should be minimal.

In practice, I grant you that a more active motor boat group would have
some effect on u.r.w, and many topics might be acceptable on both. But it
is clear that much and even most usage of motor boats takes place on open
waters.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

"Charles Lindsey" wrote in message
...
In . co.uk Dave Mayall
writes:

As an owner of a motor boat (specifically a canal narrowboat), I
certainly don't feel a need for a group, and indeed would oppose such
a move on the basis that it might detract from uk.rec.waterways.

Why was this RFD not crossposted to uk.rec.waterways?

Since the remit of the proposed uk.rec.boats.motor is broadly the same as
for the present uk.rec.boats.power, then in principle its effect on
uk.rec.waterways should be minimal.

Utter tosh.

The whole aim of this RFD is to modify the name so as to encourage those who
would use urw to talk about their boats to use this group instead.

In practice, I grant you that a more active motor boat group would have
some effect on u.r.w, and many topics might be acceptable on both. But it
is clear that much and even most usage of motor boats takes place on open
waters.

No it isn't.

It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of people who talk about their
motor boats on-line are users of the inland waterways.

Nick wrote:

I have carried out my own non-scientific research - asking users that
participate why they joined the group, how long it took them before
noticing the group and joining it, asking in UK web-based boating
forums
why people don't post to u.r.b.power, asking those who post to the US
biased rec.boats why they don't post to uk.rec.boats.power. And
without
exception, every single person that expressed an opinion said that the
name .power had put them off - they thought it was a racing group.

As far as I am concerned, you are right. I'm sure folks see the word
"power" in the title, and straight away think racing boats. So, they
look for another group.

I'd say a name change would be beneficial.

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:28:35 -0000, "Richard" wrote:

Nick wrote:

I have carried out my own non-scientific research - asking users that
participate why they joined the group, how long it took them before
noticing the group and joining it, asking in UK web-based boating forums
why people don't post to u.r.b.power, asking those who post to the US
biased rec.boats why they don't post to uk.rec.boats.power. And without
exception, every single person that expressed an opinion said that the
name .power had put them off - they thought it was a racing group.

As far as I am concerned, you are right. I'm sure folks see the word
"power" in the title, and straight away think racing boats. So, they
look for another group.

and the really smart ones don't find it and go back and look in the
group. The others wait 5 years and then think to change the name.


I'd say a name change would be beneficial.

and change the charter to match the name.

The charter matches the current name.

What's needed is a new group.

But is it? I thought what's really needed are people who want the new
group.
--
John Briggs

"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

In article ,
writes
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:16:57 +0000 (UTC), "Phil Thomas"
wrote:


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

The charter also needs to be modified

"uk.rec.boats.power will discuss power boating in UK waters and the
activities of UK powerboaters elsewhere. Power boat sports (eg racing,
water skiing and jetskiing) are valid topics except where covered by a
more specific group"

I personally think a new group is required.

I would vote for a new group, I will vote against just a name change
as it will simply cause confusion.

The charter *has* been modified. You quoted the charter for the original
group. Ok it hasn't changed much, but replace all instances of "power"
with "motor" and delete jetskiing and you have the charter of a group
that discusses motor boating and the activities of motor boaters.

No confusion at all...
--
Nick

In article ,
writes
The charter *has* been modified. You quoted the charter for the original
group. Ok it hasn't changed much, but replace all instances of "power"
with "motor" and delete jetskiing and you have the charter of a group
that discusses motor boating and the activities of motor boaters.

No confusion at all...

Where will power boaters post in the future?

In uk.rec.boats.motor coz they have a motor! In the same way as Laser
dingy racers wouldn't be out of place posting in uk.rec.sailing or
skiffs (sp?) wouldn't be out of place in uk.rec.boats.paddle.

Just to clarify accepted terminology:

If you have a powerboat then you *are* a motor-boater.
If you have a motorboat then you are *not necessarily* a power-boater.

I am the first to agree that if the amount of 'powerboat only' related
traffic grew to such an extent, then a new group would be worth an RFD.
Just as it would if a lot of jetskiers or waterskiers posted. But that
is a *long* time off and the charter does state the topics which are
valid "unless covered by a more specific group".

Regards,

--
Nick