> Mike Vandeman wrote:
> > On 13 Nov 2005 08:35:13 -0800, "Josh Campbell" <jcampbell.joshua@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > .I joined this group thinking it was a professional list-serve.
> > Very funny. How can that be true, for a newsgroup open to the entire world?
> > Why
> > not offer something more constructive?
> The problem is that "sci.bio" is something of a misnomer - another
> group I frequent in this heirarchy is a talking shop for professionals
> in the field; yes, amateurs are welcome and questions are answered (I
> myself am an amateur in that field), and based on that experience when
> I first discovered this group I expected something equivalent for
To elaborate on this, there are other groups where the discussion of
such things as your proposed no-human gazetting policy are appropriate
topics for discussion, such as the animals.nature group I last
encountered you on. Never mind that it's a policy conservationists
rejected as out of date three decades ago, it is a *policy* rather than
a scientific issue, and your case isn't based on science. Therefore it
has no place in a sci.* group. Now, if you want to discuss Culotta's
1995 finding that amphibian species richness doubled in habitat
remnants following habitat fragmentation, or argue that Gillespie et
al. were wrong to conclude that moderate disturbance has no effect on
amphibian and reptile community structure in Sulawesi, that would be an
appropriate angle to take in an ecology group.
I have to confess to having been disillusioned that this group more
often appears to be "alt.politics.environment" than "sci.bio.ecology" -
please move the politics elsewhere, and maybe practising scientists
would be encouraged to develop this group into an ecology discussion
forum. As for the group being "What I make it", one ecologist does not
a discussion forum make - as I say I answer questions where I can, but
if I were to start a thread on, say, the causes of the latitudinal
gradient in species richness, the latest non-equilibrium model of
island biogeography or the conservation applications of population
regulation models, I don't suppose I'd get a great many responses.