CALL FOR DISCUSSION: PCR/bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts.pcr

David Steffen steffen at mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu
Sun May 16 17:31:13 EST 1993


John Nash writes:
>IMHO, it's not excessive <btw, do you have the stats?>.  
...
>What are they all using to read?  rn or VAX NEWSRDR?
...
>If bionet.* readers think that "METHODS" has a high volume, they're either
>mistaken, or they're only reading bionet groups.  For the latter readers, 
>try sci.med (to keep in context of "biology").  For a real high volume 
>group, try comp.lang.c!

I beg to differ.

1) IMHO, the point is not if bionet.molbio.methods is the worst group on
usenet, but rather is it optimally meeting the needs of the biological
community.

2) The last time I brought this up for discussion, most responders
attributed my opinions to my use of rn.  In the first place, believe
me when I say I have no choice about using rn.  In the second place, I
have looked at some alternative newsreaders, and they are not the
panacea that some of the responders seemed to be suggesting.

IMHO, if we do not deal with the volume, the methods group will never
reach its full potential.

HOWEVER, I do not think division by topic is the solution.



-- 
David Steffen
Department of Cell Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston TX 77030
Telephone = (713) 798-6655, FAX = (713) 790-0545
Internet = steffen at bcm.tmc.edu



More information about the Bioforum mailing list