T. flavovirens & Re: Moderated or not?
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.
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?
More information about the Mycology