Quoted from A. Morris:
 
A USENET group will be
> a never ending, year 'round booth at the fair with questions asked by
> people whose real purpose for attending in the first place is most
> likely riding the Tilt-a-Whirl 'till they puke!  Call it a bit facile
> and more than a bit elitist, but I'm more comfortable with a small
> informative group than a large, noisy uninformed one.
>
> Anyway, I've given more than my two cents worth here and I'll not post
> any more on this topic (that poor horse!)  I'm sure I've made my position
> clear on this issue and I'll refrain from using this scholarly list as if
> it were a USENET group any further.  ;-)
 
> Aaron Morris (the horse beater's friend)
 
 Aaron, let me get this straight. You are afraid that a USENET group on
beekeeping will lessen the quality of bee-l and you do not want that?
 
I can understand not wanting to loose quality content on bee-l.
 
 But, I cannot understand where you have determined
USENET is so unsavory or unscholarly. How many USENET groups are
there?  Something like 3000? Are all of these groups for puking morons?
Are they all worthless? I don't think so. I've kept a file of all the
people on USENET who have asked me about bees in the last year. Its over
100 names long: roughly 1/3 of the bee-l subscribers. These people
have all been nice and civil and _needed_ information. I shared what I
could with them. That is part of my job. To promote and explain the art/science of beekeeping.
 If you feel that your experience on bee-l will be lessened by a USENET
group existing for beekeeping, perhaps you would like to correspond with some
of these nice folks and explain to them how unscholarly and irresponsible
they are since they were reading news on USENET.
 
Adam