larryc at teleport.com
Tue Jan 20 13:10:24 EST 1998
In article <01bd24e0$f8e6ee40$6ee87fcf at default>,
"J. Fiske" <jfiske at lightlink.com> wrote:
> Why? I've been monitoring this group for some weeks now. IMHO there is not
> enough traffic to make it worth while giving the ISP's grief for not
> carrying it. bionet.agroforestry is the place to be currently.
The next time the biosci FAQ is posted, read it. There are a substantial
number of forestry topics that are not appropriate for bionet.agroforestry.
While bionet may look like a usenet heirarchy, it is not. It is a wholly
owned production of BioSci administration. In particular, the agroforesters
have indicated that they do not wish to host discussions of industrial
forest practices or of the political turmoil surrounding modern forestry.
An attempt to create sci.forestry in 1997 failed for lack of votes. Only
73 people out of all usenet bothered to vote 'yes' to create the group.
It's apparent that bionet.agroforestry is a little too obscure a location
to host forestry discussions. Unless, of course, you feel that only
73 people on usenet have any interest in forestry.
Trust me, alt.forestry is needed.
More information about the Ag-forst