T. flavovirens & Re: Moderated or not?

Geoff Steckel gwes at panda.osf.org
Wed Oct 1 15:57:01 EST 1997


In article <199710011833.LAA11370 at hollywood.cinenet.net>,
Nathan Wilson <velosa at CINENET.NET> wrote:
>
>Editorial note: I would also like to point out that BIOSCI's response
>to this issue should create significantly more outrage among those of
>us who argued that moderation was an infringement of free speech.
>While free speech is arguably a critical component for successfully
>maintaining a free society, willingness to abide by the decisions made
>using the agreed upon decision making process is nearly definitional
>for even creating a free society.  Even if you disagree with the
>decision, you should still fight for the sanctity of the decision
>process that you participated in.

As a BIONET group, BIOSCI can do whatever they want to.
IMnsHO, pressuring them is counterproductive.

The moderation vote was -not- taken according to customary USENET
protocols and policies.  As a USENET group, there is no
useful precedent for retromoderation.
The vote as reported was insufficient to -create- a group.
The vote was reported by an interested party, which invalidates
it by USENET custom.

We can create (using the standard methods) sci.bio.mycology (moderated).
This would require a valid vote, though.

OBmycology:

The first Tricholoma flavovirens have started showing up
in the Boston area.  I have only found them in one habitat:
-young- (less than (say) 20' high) white pines with young
deciduous trees intermixed.

Has anyone else seen large flushes in other habitat?

	thanks,
	Geoff Steckel



More information about the Mycology mailing list