[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) ----------
Richard submitted "sci.environment.forestry", rather than his first idea of
"sci.environment.trees", probably in a great part to lobbying by myself.
Having had training in plant taxonomy, I felt very comfortable naming
"backwards(?)" from the general to the specific. From what I understood
about the comments made regarding Usenet naming convention, this
evolutionary naming is the convention they prefer. 
 Should "sci.environment.forestry" establish the larger forum, it is
apparent we may be SOON need ask for creation of
"sci.environment.forestry.urban". I believe the layman already understands
"urban forestry" as a forum where you would expect discussion about urban
trees. If a person interested in trees reads from the urban forestry news
group, I believe they would develop a better understanding of the
interdisciplinary issues that go into having urban trees/forest over the
long haul.  
I love to talk pure and simple "trees" too and that term is very good at
attracting general interest. If there HAS to be a news group who uses
"trees" in the name, I suggest a submittal for branching off "rec.gardens"
to "rec.gardens.trees". The only drawback to this is that there will be two
forums going on where we might be better off with one. ??  
At 01:05 PM 5/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
> 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 -
Shaub Dunkley
2608 University Dr.
Durham NC 27707