CALL FOR DISCUSSION: PCR/bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts.pcr
steffen at mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu
Sun May 16 17:22:29 EST 1993
In response to Raj Shankarappa:
>The beauty of the methods group is the diversity of techniques that
>can be discussed with everyone. I think it will be counterproductive
>to split this into other technique based groups.
Dave Kristofferson writes:
>It has been mentioned on occasion in the past that the number of
>messages on METHODS was becoming excessive. Is this *not* a problem?
IN MY OPINION:
The number of messages in the methods group is just beginning to
become a problem, and is more of a problem for the people we would
like to get to use this group, as opposed to the majority of the
people now using it.
Dividing this group by topic is NOT the solution. Prefiltering the
repetitive, basic, easy questions and the multiple responses IS the
solution. I have expressed this opinion before and proposed a
mechanism for accomplishing this. Nobody agreed with me. Oh well.
Given a choice between the realistic solutions of leaving things the
way they are or dividing by topic, I don't really care. I will read
all the groups anyway. I do not intend to vote on this proposal.
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