In article <3pktvn$fel at sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> Graham Dellaire <popa0206 at PO-Box.McGill.CA> writes:
>If you still aren't convinced post again and I will continue my list : )
I'm still not convinced. But please don't trouble continuing your list. Why
don't you just keep posting on all these topics in this newsgroup, which sees
very little traffic. If the vast number of postings on recombination
then becomes overwhelming and bothersome for other readers of
bionet.genome.chromosomes I would suggest that _then_ would be a good time to
consider starting up a new group, not now.
>Recombination is not just a tool for determining linkage or getting your cell
>to express protein "X" it is a legitimate topic on its own!
>Therefore I think there is definately room for a functional News group....
>how many post are there in bionet.genome.chrom2 I wonder? huh?
(Sorry, are you making some point here? It's gone way over my head. The lesson
I would learn is that starting up new groups on more limited subjects is a way
to generate large numbers of groups each with very little traffic.)
>Sadly I think your ill-informed post is just a symptom of not having a proper forum
>for Recombination issues.
Well silly me.
QED? Thus _what_ was demonstrated? OK, there's lots of interesting things to
talk about concerning Recombination. (I now realise we have to capitalise it
to show due respect, another fact I was unaware of previously, but that's the
beauty of these news groups, a constant exposure to previously unknown facts.)
IMHO you need to demonstrate that there is an interest in discussing the topic
(maybe) _and_ that discussion can't be handled by a pre-existing group.
You asked for opinions on whether the new group would be a good idea. I gave
my opinion. I had no idea that you felt so passionately about the subject that
I risked such abusive responses from you, if so I simply wouldn't have
bothered replying. A public apology would be in order, but I don't expect one.
Dave Curtis (dcurtis at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk)