BTK-MCA/metabolic-reg

John Woods eanv20 at castle.ed.ac.uk
Wed Jun 16 03:27:58 EST 1993


UNA is smith-una at yale.edu (Una Smith)
DAF is dfell at brookes.ac.uk (David Fell)

I am eanv20 at castle.ac.uk (John Woods)

UNA> John Woods' description of this mailing list sounds virtually identical
UNA> to many of the long-running discussions in bionet.info-theory.  I suggest
UNA> that the current subscribers join bionet.info-theory rather than creating
UNA> yet another newsgroup.

DAF> Una Smith's proposition strikes me as [a fallacy]: information theory
DAF> discusses these topics, therefore these topics are information theory.

UNA> Don't confuse a thing's name with what goes on in the name of that thing!

I have been reading bionet-info-theroy for the last two and a half
years.  I have learnt a lot of stuff, but none of it relevant to our
field.  I have not posted any stuff from our field because it did not
look at all relevant.

UNA> I did not say "information theory discusses" but the *people* in the
UNA> newsgroup bionet.info-theory often do discuss (or try to) biochemistry
UNA> and other aspects of cell function.

Judging by the state of your discussion with Tom Schneider, those
*people* would appear to be you.  You also appear to be fighting a
losing battle.  Rightly so in my opinion --- you seem to be trying to
broaden their scope to an extent where they would lose their focus.

UNA> It is a rather theoretical group, and I think it would benefit
UNA> from the attention of more experimentalists.

It's a different theory.  Have you ever heard of Flux Control
Coefficients (possible the most basic concept of our theory) mentioned
on info-theory? 

UNA> Why shut ourselves off into the narrowest possible groups?  I'd
UNA> like to suggest that the metabolic regulations folks join
UNA> bionet.info-theory.

We will, if we fail to establish a newsgroup of our own.

UNA> which contrary to the past few weeks generally doesn't have that
UNA> much traffic.

Is your site working? Or is it mine that's wrong? I've seen 20
messages appear in the last 24 hours.

UNA> A new group could be created at a later date, when and if it
UNA> becomes apparent that there is sufficient interest and participation
UNA> support a separate group.

Unfortunately, if we fail to establish a new newsgroup, we lose our
mailing list :-(

UNA> Usenet newsgroups, including the bionet ones, are distributed to
UNA> thousands of sites, and therefore are not efficient distribution
UNA> mechanisms for groups that have very small readerships.  I think it
UNA> is important to evaluate this cost when deciding how to vote about
UNA> the creation of a new group.

I can't really see that the extra headers involved in having two small
groups outweigh the effort of having to sift two largely separate
subjects out of one group.  And the whole bionet traffic is minimal
compared to the reset of Usenet --- especially the binary groups.

But I do agree that we ought to evaluate a new group proposal
carefully.  I just can't see how that fits with your response.  I have
posted an article containing points of our theory and you have not
picked out a single similarity with info-theory *as it is now*.  If
you want to change the complexion of info-theory you'd better ask them
about their charter --- you seem to be fighting a one-person battle at
the moment.  You have not asked me for further details of any of my
extravagant claims (not even the explanation of dominance) or a
bibliography --- or even some sample postings.  Yet here you are
justifying your former position without having budged an inch.  With
all respect, it strikes me that you could maybe do a little more
evaluation yourself.  The sad thing is that the postings you have been
making to info-theory are just the sort of thing that our group loves
to discuss.  Let's come together on this --- we need your input.

				... John

-- 
"
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit (Virgil)
[approx] Tr: The time may come when we will look back on these days and laugh
"



More information about the Bioforum mailing list