Forestry Censorship...

Larry Caldwell larryc at
Sat Sep 13 15:11:55 EST 1997

In article <34199836.69EF at>,
Joseph Zorzin <redoak at> wrote:
> Jostnix wrote:

> > I understand that there are several proposed forestry newsgroups to be
> > approved (I think through Stanford) but I did not understand the process of
> > voting.  Maybe someone can enlighten this group to that process.

No, Stanford didn't have anything to do with it.  It was a usenet vote.
Someone may have had a Stanford email address, but that was all Stanford
had to do with it.

The results of the voting are in, and there were not enough votes cast to
pass a new group.  You should have voted if you were interested.

> They got voted down with only 2/3 in favor! Doesn't make much sense,
> does it?

I suspected that would happen.  Bionet.agroforestry doesn't have anywhere
near enough traffic to spawn a new group.  I've been involved in newgroup
creation before, and if you don't have enough readers to generate 100 posts
a day, a newgroup probably won't pass.

A number of readers of news.groups automaticall vote against any new group
just to keep the number of spurious groups down.  The fact that sci.forestry
only collected 30+ no votes in an indication that the regulars really thought
it was justified.  The fact that it only collected 70+ yes votes from all
of Usenet lets you know how much real interest in forestry there is in the

My wife and I were just talking about this yesterday.  The gap between the
urban world and the rural world has become a vast chasm.  Urban people
have no interest in rural concerns, and don't understand rural issues.
It's hard to even find a forum for discussion or rural topics.  Agriculture
groups are dominated by backyard gardeners, and even the most ardent 
ecofreak never considers actually doing any forestry.

It's frustrating.

-- Larry

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list