🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov22.022315.25712@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>
>In article <KIRAVUO.92Nov21204057@lesti.hut.fi>, 
>kiravuo@hut.fi (Timo Kiravuo) writes:
>||>In article <hunter-201192130641@158.185.20.241> 
>hunter@master.lds-az.loral.com (Bill Hunter) writes:
>|>>We have been asked to vote for a change to the rec.scouting net.  
>|>
>|>I am not pleased with the current group. The internal policy of
>|>BSA dominates the group and causes any interesting information to
>|>sink among the signal noice, therefore causing most of use
>|>foreigners to stay out.
>
>how about rec.scouting.bsa and rec.scouting.everyone_else

This really is not helpful and is very insular. BSA policy discussions are
valuable and it might be useful to restrict distribution,  but this is
crude and unreliable. I have voted for a split; I expect to subscribe to
all the groups but .policy will be further down in my newsrc and more 
likely to get junked if I am short of time. Personally, I *do* find BSA
policy discussions interesting, though it is not a topic I would post on.

However I am convinced that it would be a positive move to split as I
suspect there are vast numbers of interested people who have checked
out rec.scouting and just given up due to the vast amount of posts on
policy topics which they never even thought about in their Scouting
careers. There really is no reason to think that subdivision would
weaken scouting on the net. It is a vast topic which is not thriving
for the very reason that people turn away when they see the current
slant of the group.


And for my 2p's worth,
BSA should provide groups with the option of going mixed, as in the UK.
The only condition to joining as a member or leader should be making the
promise, which should include a `duty to God' and a law mandating
respect for yourself and others amongst other things.

Greg
--
Greg Harewood
NMR Physics, UKC.