when to leave bionet.agroforestry
redoak at forestmeister.com
Thu Oct 30 05:36:42 EST 1997
Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <19971028143700.JAA16912 at ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> forestfair at aol.com (ForestFair) wrote:
> > I've only been reading this newsgroup for a month (and from an _unapproved_
> > service at that!) and would like someone to explain what this move to
> > alt.forestry is all about? Aren't most new newsgroups started when the volume
> > in an established newsgroup becomes too high to handle, and a group of users
> > with an interest in a particular subtheme goes off on their own (often
> > remaining in the original group as well)? That doesn't appear to be the case
> > with bionet.agroforestry.
> No, it's not the case here. The bionet heirarchy is not part of usenet,
> it only looks that way. All bionet newsgroups are under the control of
> BioSci Administration. They can be moderated just by selecting a
> moderator, and are dedicated to one narrow academic discipline each.
> Most bionet newsgroups do not welcome posts by the general public.
Good point, Larry, and another good reason for us to dump
bionet.agroforestry since questions from non foresters (like yourself)
are becomming common.
> Agroforestry is a co-cropping technique popular in tropical regions
> of the planet. Discussion of forestry without intercropping is off
> topic here, as are all political discussions, and the bantering
> between Flower Child Zorzin and his pistol-packin' companero
I'm still wating for Don Staples to agree to do Saturday Night Live- me
as Abby Hoffman and he as John Wayne. <G>
> The agroforestry folks got together at an agroforestry conference about
> six months ago, and decided to make b.a a moderated group and reclaim
> it for agroforestry. They put their plans on hold after anguished
> cries from yours truly and the Fern Hoppers. However, we really need
> to move. Many of our posts really are not welcome here.
True again, you're a fount of wisdom. <G>
> An attempt to create sci.forestry failed because, out of the millions
> of people who read usenet, only about 73 voted in favor. That is not
> enough. I decided to propose alt.forestry because alt group creation
> is easier. However, many sites simply are not adding new alt groups
> except by user request, and even worse, there is no guarantee that
> a new alt group will be propagated around the net.
> The only thing that will assure wide propagation is traffic, and you
> need traffic to assure propagation. Thus, all the crossposting to
> bionet.agroforestry and alt.forestry. Bionet.agroforestry has never
> seen so much traffic as it has seen since we decided to move out.
The regulars can help by starting up lots of new threads in
alt.forestry, we have much to talk about. And if the so called "leaders"
of this profession got off their lazy overpaid and underworked fat asses
and showed up here, we could really have a world wide forum for the
advancement of forestry. I won't hold my breath.
> I'm crossposting this to a couple news admin groups, in the hope that
> a Net Personage or two will look with favor on our humble project, and
> boost the propagation a bit.
> -- Larry
I intend to only reply to messages like this and otherwise stay out of
the agrowhatever group.
More information about the Ag-forst