With all due respect, I think this misses the point. There have been several calls for a new list to deal with technical issues that are largely independent of the forest policy debate. While the debate is important, so to is a clear channel to exchange new hypotheses, critical review, and testing. Forest science can contribute to the policy debate, but not without some time to develop an appropriate foundation for discussion. Guillaume's plea, I believe is to open up a new forum to do just that. I for one hope that the effort succeeds. Greg Johnson Forest Biometrician Willamette Industries gjohnson@wii.com On Friday, October 03, 1997 5:43 PM, Mike Schnobrich [SMTP:hoofenit@ris.net] wrote: > Elitism goes over very poorly on the internet. > > Furthermore, I don't understand why anyone that is so unhappy with all the > unwashed masses having an opportunity to express an opinion on our forest > stays on this list. Why don't they find people that agree with them and > then email all those golden ideas to each other. > > Although, I for one would be quite board emailing only to graduate > assistance who are sucking up of a grade or those carefully chosen yes men > that no doubt some of these "scientist" have working for them. But to each > his own, I guess.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0