Re: Splitting the ForestNet!

• To: Multiple recipients of list FOREST <FOREST@LISTSERV.FUNET.FI>
• Subject: Re: Splitting the ForestNet!
• From: "Brian HADDON 819-779-3000 Ext.1973" <bhaddon@AM.NCR.FORESTRY.CA>
• Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 10:12:08 -0500
• Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
• Autoforwarded: false
• content-length: 484
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN
• Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
• Hop-Count: 0
• Importance: normal
• In-Reply-To: <199510031401.JAA24493@mercury.forestry.umn.edu>
• Mr-Received: by mta NCR2.MUAS; Relayed; Tue, 03 Oct 1995 10:12:08 -0500 (EST)
• Mr-Received: by mta NCR2; Relayed; Tue, 03 Oct 1995 10:12:09 -0500 (EST)
• Priority: normal
• Reply-To: FOREST Mailing list on forest research and studies <FOREST@LISTSERV.FUNET.FI>
• Sender: OWNER-FOREST@LISTSERV.FUNET.FI
• Sensitivity: Company-Confidential
• Ua-Content-Id: 119A1A8C0700
• X400-Mts-Identifier: [;3708121003101995/A02383/NCR2]

>>  >SPLITTING THE FORESTNET

I concur with Hobart Perry when he says:

>>  I would like to say that in my opinion we should NOT split the forest list.
>>  To my mind, the volume is low enough that I can quickly sort through the
>>  uninteresting material. It also provides the opportunity to be exposed to
>>  material that I would otherwise ignore.
>>
>>  Those who have to pay for email may disagree.
>>
Brian Haddon
Canadian Forest Service
Natural Resources Canda
Ottawa, Ontario

• Re: Splitting the ForestNet!
• From: "C. Hobart Perry" <hperry@FORESTRY.UMN.EDU>

• Prev: Re: Splitting the ForestNet!
• Next: RCW valuation
• Index: Forest mailing list October 1995
• Thread: Forest list subjects in October 1995