bill.macdonald at easynet.co.uk
Sun Sep 14 12:05:37 EST 1997
Larry Caldwell <larryc at teleport.com> wrote in article
> > Can you explain why anyone
> > would vote against a new forestry newsgroup. Politics? Ignorance?
> > Stupidity?...and we have to wait another 6 months to vote! and how do
> They would vote against it to keep down the number of spurious newsgroups
> that nobody uses. If NOBODY had voted no, sci.forestry still would not
> have passed, because it didn't even collect 100 yes votes.
I voted No No for just that reason. I was surprised to see as many as
seventy people voting. There was a majority, just not enough all round to
justify creating a new group, let alone two. I'm still a relative newcomer
to newsnet but this has been an interesting process to watch. On
reflection, the bionet branches of the net do not seem to attract as many
posts. A large proportion seem to be sourced from administrators in
various seats of learning. Nothing against this but announcements of
forthcoming events are a bit too dry to generate good discussion.
I can't claim to be a regular poster to this group but I am a regular
reader. Most of what is discussed relates to North America and I don't
know enough about the issues to comment. I am learning, so perhaps one
> A lively RFD process convinces the news.groups regulars
> that there really is a need for the group.
I do not recall a single post in response to the RFD, am I wrong? I
started off with the opinion that creating new groups would fragment
bionet.agroforestry. Nothing has happened to change my mind. That is not
because I am hard to convince!
> At this point, the best thing to do is probably to start an alt group and
> try to build readership.
OK may be it is worth a try. At least the alt group attract readership,
only not always on-topic. The ones that have few posts seem to become a
feeding ground for SPAM. Are there enough foresters out there to keep the
forestry to spam ratio at a tolerable level?
More information about the Ag-forst