I know I said I would not waste any more bandwidth on ths, but I'm
finding it hard not to respond to Jane Beckman's posting where she asks:
 > So, is anyone forcing you to go over to Usenet and perform this
 > function?  I have no problem answering "dumb" questions,....
 
In my posting I chose my words very carefully so as NOT to insinuate
that the questions on sci.ag.bees will be dumb.  My exact words were:
 > (I) continue to answer because I know there is a limit to the time
 > I'll be spending answering simple questions....
                              ------
In no way, shape or form did I imply that the postings to sci.ag.bees
will be "dumb" questions or that Usenet users are mere troglodites.
Putting "dumb" in quotations marks attributes to me something that I was
very careful not to say.  I don't feel that sci.ag.bees will be a
dumb/stupid group, and in fact I believe that quality discourse will
take place on that newsgroup, should it be created.
 
My point is that due to the difference in the delivery mechanisms
(LISTSERV vs Usenet) a Usenet newsgroup will geterate higher volumes of
simple questions.  AND ocasionally there will be a posting to
sci.ag.bees that will regard something that I don't know!  And
unfortunately, I'll miss that post because I won't be a devoted follower
of the newsgroup (too many groups, too little time).  This is why I feel
that splitting off a sci.ag.bees newsgroup will denigrate BEE-L.  Some
people will abandon BEE-L for sci.ag.bees.  Some people will discover
BEE-L via sci.ag.bees and may leave sci.ag.bees for BEE-L.  Others will
follow both discussions.  But the existence of two groups will bleed off
expertise from a single group, and both groups will suffer for it.
 
Anyway, I WILL NOT POST AGAIN ON THIS TOPIS.  If anyone has more to say
to me on this, please move the discussion to private E-MAIL, to spare
those on BEE-L who don't want to hear it.  By all means, vote on the
proposed newsgroup.  As they say in Chicago, "Vote early, vote often!"