Dear forest netters, I am sending this message to forest@nic.funet.fi from a computer which is not at my place of work and using a different email account (the reasons for which are given below). Ryde James wrote >To Charles A Phillips and others who feel strongly about the use of hemp >for paper: the forest network is a medium for exchange of ideas about how >to manage forest resources... >Your latest message breaks some of our (unwritten rules). It was the >advocacy of a course of action without an attempt to give a scientificly >valid justification. It was abusive (we don't like being called sawdust >heads), it inferred we are biased ( sponsorship doesn't automatically infer >bias, we all get paid by someone), and worst it was a collection of >unsubstantiated assertions for which you claimed some high moral ground.... >I am just one user of the network and is a little presumptious of me to >make this request --- but we have been through this before, please treat >the subject in a scientific manner or take your discussion elsewhere. Ryde Yes, "we have been through this before". I sent an "emotionally charged" message to this forum in June regarding what I'd seen of the logging in Tasmania. That message should not have contained the emotional slant. However I did not do use slang terms and the message did not represent the worst case scenarios in Tasmania. My employer told me that North Forest Products (NFP, they do wood chipping via clearfelling in old growth forests) had contacted the college regarding legal action against my work place because of that email message. I apologised to my employer and sent NFP a written apology. I believe that NFP knew that my message did not represent the ideas of my work place. The apology included that I was not intending to detract from their company's "good name" and that I was perturbed because my partner left due significantly to threats etc after meetings of the "Forest Protection Society" in a small country town where we own a farm. (I believe the Forest Protection Society (FPS) to be what is known in the USA as a "Wise Use" group.) I also believe that NFP's actions to my work place were intended to quell my pseudo-public wording about logging via this forum. The written apology I sent NFP and some part of my email message somehow reached the chairperson of the local branch of the FPS. (He told me he had copies.) That FPS appears to me to be strongly in support of logging of old growth forests. The chairperson threatened me with legal action and indicated that others in his group wanted to put me "through the ringer". His tone on the phone indicated a high level of anger with regard to the email and to the apology I sent to NFP. I believe that NFP passed on my communications to that chairperson. I also believe and that they knew he would vent anger and coordinate with his group which would possibly suppress my forest conservation activities. That chairperson told me that my email message was picked up in a university in America. Is the passing on of personal details in this manner part of "netiquette"? I presumed the academics on this forum would not engage in that usage of email. Are the academics willing to vote against such abuse of email? I am definitely willing to vote against name calling in this forum. Hemp's main advantage is that it would yield a relatively quick output of paper without the clearing of any more old growth forests. The hemp could be grown on present grazing land or urban lots while the trees are being planted and growing on similar places. So it is not a case of hemp versus plantations, it is a case of hemp versus clearing old growth. A scientific analysis should address those two aspects. Clearing old growth has an advantage for industry in Tasmania because they don't have to buy the land in the first place, it is usually state owned. This is where the scientific analysis becomes only one aspect. The other is the land costs and hence logging could continue even if hemp was more economical in the long term than forest management. It would be good if academics in forestry could set some time aside each day to helping the subject of forestry by having its industrial public relations input removed. Then such controversy would not enter their realm. Regards, Chris (cdean@heartland.bradley.edu) Above are my views, opinions, comments etc (unless explicitly indicated otherwise) and not necessarily those of anyone else, and so on and so forth.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0