Re: TH: Re: Usenet Newsgroup

 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 Tryzno Ellsberry | FloraList Operations | Baltimore USDA Zone 7
 -------------------------+-( http://Flora.Com )-+----------------------

Follow-Ups: References: