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.

Few owners of non-inland-waterway boats post to uk.rec.waterways.
Many power (or motor) boats are non-inland-waterway boats.

Adrian

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)

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:50:13 +0000, Nick Atty wrote:


snip
"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.

I reckon 5% about boats, 30% about waterways, 65% chatter.......

I have to say that I'd never looked at uk.rec.boats.power until this RFD
- assuming that it related solely to powerboats - but personally I would
welcome a group with a focus on the technical/mechanical aspects of
motorboats in general. The proposed charter for uk.rec.boats.motor does
not seem to provide this specifically, however having looked at a recent
snapshot of postings to u.r.b.p, I can see the rationale behind the
proposed name change and would support it as being a more appropriate
name for the group. IMO the name change is likely to have the effect
hoped for by the proponent.

--
Andy Clarke

Boat Safety Scheme Examinations and narrowboat repairs
Oxford Canal based. Mobile: 07860 577480

In article
"Nick Atty" writes:

[45 lines, only two of which were relevant to the reply, snipped]

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.

Pity that you haven't learnt How To Trim from that 65% of content.

(OTOH, at least you didn't top-post, unlike some other respondents in
this thread.)

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919

"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