[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TH: Re: Usenet Newsgroup
Post-To: Tree-House@Majordomo.Flora.Com (Community Forestry) ----------
-------
At 03:00 PM 4/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
> Post-To: Tree-House@Majordomo.Flora.Com (Community Forestry) ----------
> -------
> On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Bgingg wrote:
>
>> I support the sci.environment.community.trees designator as I believe
>> that the rec.parks is not inclusive enough.
>
> Expert Usenet advice indicates that sci.environment.community.trees
> cannot pass for 2 reasons. 1st, it requires adding on 2 fields instead
> of only one, leaving 'sci.environment.community' as a pointer to
> an object which does not exist. This could be tweaked sci.environment.
> community-trees, but that fails for reason #2 which is that the term
> 'community' is controversial for some reason and is being debated
> under rec.pets.cats.community (I don't make this stuff up). Beverly,
> could you support 'sci.environment.forests' -- expressly inclusive
> of community forests, backyard forests, old-growth etc ?
>
>> ... A newsgroup (in addition to the listserv) in
>> the same vein could reach more folks and expand the benefits. Just my
>> .02!
>>
>> Beverly Gingg, Coordinator
>
> As always, your contributions are much appreciated, Beverly.
>
> Richard@Flora.Com
> -------------------------+----------------------+----------------------
> Richard Tryzno Ellsberry | FloraList Operations | Baltimore USDA Zone 7
> -------------------------+-( http://Flora.Com )-+----------------------
>
>
>
I support the designator 'sci.environment.forests'. There may be some, like
myself, who may be inclined to prefer 'sci.environment.forestry'. On second
thought, while this designator may appeal to the scientifically inclined, it
might NOT be explored by those who WOULD explore 'rec.parks.trees'. As
important as anything else right now is to create a shared dialogue between
ALL those with an interest in community trees and forests, scientists,
professionals, lay citizens, etc.. 'Sci.environment.forests' may be
appealing enough to do that.
However, I would resist the appeal of the term 'trees', as in
'sci.environment.trees". We will never have a healthy forest in our
communities if we cannot see it for the trees.
Thanks for the work on creating any newsgroup more focused on community
forestry. Its too bad 'community' is a controversial term. I guess an
eventual 'sci.environment.forests.urban' is a good equivalent.
Shaub Dunkley
2608 University Dr.
Durham NC 27707