IMPORTANT! - DISCUSSION ON THE FUTURE OF BIONEWS/bionet.general
num208jn at MBDS.NRC.CA
Mon Dec 16 08:40:49 EST 1991
In article <1991Dec16.094700.146 at lincoln.ac.nz>, brownt1 at lincoln.ac.nz writes:
>If i've read plan A correctly, although bionet.announce would be noise
>free, because Dave would be moderating it, bionet.general would still be
>taking the 'recreational' load. This doesn't leave anywhere for well
>controlled 'on topic' discussions (should they ever occur :) which isn't
>noisy, if the chatting continues in bionet.general.
>Plan B avoids this by having bionet.biochat, but like Dave says, would
>probably get a lot of noise in bionet.general.
>So i wonder if it would be worth either 1) adding a bionet.biochat group
>to PLAN A, to minimise noise in the unmoderated bionet.general under that plan,
>or 2) moderate bionet.general in PLAN B. Whether a moderated
>bionet.general under PLAN B would involve more work than a moderated
>bionet.announce under PLAN A I don't know.
>I guess i'm suggesting three groups, a moderated bionet.announce or
>bionet.general, a bionet.discussion for discussion of _biology_, and a
>bionet.biochat for chat. Plus a bionet.help if you want to keep that out
>of discussion. This is the same as Foteos's suggestion, but with
>The idea of a chat group may work very well, the group
>comp.sys.amiga.advocacy is used in that hierachy for endless flamewars and
>'mines better than yours' discussions (only marginally worse than "this is
>biology" "no it's not" ? ;-). Probably the best group in the hierachy, as
>long as you don't actually read it :-). <having said that, this group has
>a reasonably high volume, it is not a place discussions go to die>
G'day.... I've tagged on to this message because it has a Usenet
flavour, and that's relevant to my point.
I've been following the "Future of Bionet's BioNews" with great
interest, and I tend towards "Plan A", although I have not ruled out
Plan B completely (and the fence post marks don't hurt ;-)... but I
have a little question I'd like a few responses on please.
Have the readership (who get this through USENET) heard of sci.bio?
I have been lurking there for a while, and it looks like a friendly,
flame-free newsgroup where all sorts of interesting biological
subjects get tossed around with all sorts of interesting discussion.
It's a "moderate volume" newsgroup, and in the month or so I've been
lurking, I haven't seen one fight. Do our discussions have to be in
BIONET sponsored newsgroups - especially the ones like the hormonal
cycle one - not that I mind that they are, it's just that there's a
perfectly good newsgroup for them already - why form another!
Also... many of the "officially off-topic message" really belong in
bionet.methds-reagnts (or whatever it's name is... the METHODS
newsgroup)... maybe if you answer a query in this vein you could point
the querier(?) to a reply there... it keeps things a little neater.
I'd hate to see the "chat" group take away from the "methods" group,
which is doing really well, and IMHO a real quality place to pick up
Nice discussion, Dave, Fote et al...
John Nash. Nash at biologysx.lan.nrc.ca (preferred) or num208jn at mbds.nrc.ca
Institute for Biological Sciences, National Research Council of Canada,
==> Disclaimer: All opinions are mine, not NRC's! <==
More information about the Bioforum