[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TH: Usenet news: sci.environment.forests ? (fwd)
Post-To: Tree-House@Majordomo.Flora.Com (Community Forestry) ----------
-------
In a message dated 97-05-08 10:17:09 EDT, Grow19@aol.com wrote:
>still think the name should include urban from the very start. i know this
>may sound unimaginative, but sci.environment.forests sounds rural to me and
>if i didn't know where the idea came from i don't think i would look at it,
>assuming it is not about community, urban, etc.
I recognize Grow19's point, but it works both ways. I sure don't live in
an _urban_ environment. And "urban" and "trees" aren't normally
mutually associative. Shouldn't "tree" or "trees" be here somewhere?
It seems like that's the most important word.
What's wrong with sci.environment.trees ? Just saying "trees" gets us
to the crux of the issue w/o specifying _where_ they have to be.
It's inclusive of urban, suburban, rural, forested environments.
Undoubtedly,
because it makes sense, there must be some sense of Usenet protocol
against this name.
regards -
Jim