Also I have noticed that meetings (at least in my area) tend to develop there own personality on their own....some meetings are filled with a bunch of newcommers, some are predominantly women, some are predominantly young people, some are predominantly men, accross the lake in NOLA there are a few predominantly GLBT meetings.....I have been to all of these meetings and felt welcomed at them, but none of them are "special interest" meetings, they just naturally have a higher concentration of one group of people, there meeting names don't stress restrictions on attendance.
My home group for instance is mostly attended by young people in the area, our name is "Let It Bleed" sometimes a few older people show up....no problem whatsoever. However if we had named ourselves "Young and Restless" and denoted our selves as a "young person's meeting" the older people that attend our meeting on occasion would probably not come, and if they did would feel uncomfortable and the rest of the meeting would too. I have accidentally driven an hour and a half to go hit a meeting in a different town, and happened to show up at the club house's "womens only" meeting. Yes we were welcomed and they told us we could stay, but there was an uncomfortableness and some women there seemed a little ticked off 4 dude showed up.
All this controversy could be avoided by simply not segregating addicts in official NA meetings, that's all I'm saying.
Moontime-Correct me if I am wrong, I am kinda splotchy on my NA history but I'm learning, but weren't the board of trustee bullitins from the 80's like the one you posted never fellowhip approved? Were they ever brought up as regional motions at a WSC? I agree with some of them and if they are conference approved motions, then cool beans, but if they aren't then don't they just amount to the opinion of a small group of people rather than NA as a whole?