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

[wetsel_r at msnews.wustl.edu]

In a previous article, kristoff at NET.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson) wrote:
>> I agree with Ashok completely.  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.  Please do not spoil the newsgroup that is helping the 
>> most.  
>> Raj Shankarappa
>> bsh at med.pitt.edu
> 
>It has been mentioned on occasion in the past that the number of
>messages on METHODS was becoming excessive.  Is this *not* a problem?
>				Dave Kristofferson
-----
Dave:

I agree completely with Ashok and Raj.  IMHO we do *NOT* need an additional 
newsgroup for reasons that these two have alread mentioned.  What MAY 
become excessive would be the number of bionet.methds--- groups that would 
turn over 2-3 messages per day!  Again, IMHO, the number of messages per 
day on B.M.M-R groups in not excessive.  I'll show all my cards with this 
so here goes --- if you want to see *excessive* message turn-over, try 
rec.photo and rec.arts.startrek.current -- each of these roll-over a 
*minimum* of 250-300 messages per day.  I could keep listing reasons why 
the methods group should not be split but I'll end it here.

I vote *no* in dividing the methds group.

Sincerely, 
David
haviland at kids.wustl.edu
===========================================================================
+  David L. Haviland, Ph.D.	     Internet:"haviland at kids.wustl.edu"   +
+  Washington Univ. School of Med.   A.K.A : The Compiler                 +
+  Dept. of Peds./Pulm. Box 8116     ICBM-Net : Just hit St. Louis        +
+  400 S. Kingshighway               &-6  <- User is Brain Dead...        +
+  St. Louis, MO  63110              FAX: 314-454-2476                    +
+  (314) 454-6076                                                         +
===========================================================================