Peer Review Anonymity on Trial <Pine.3.89.9601140224.B15173-010000

U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu
Mon Jan 15 16:31:54 EST 1996



On Mon, 15 Jan 1996 03:30:49 -0500 (EST) "Ferland Louis H."
<ferlandl at ERE.UMontreal.CA> wrote:

>Kathy, (in response to your curiosity)
>(please follow in your text, QUOTED AT LENGTH ABOVE)

>1) My 2 line comment applied to several of the items appearing in
>the preceeding 143 lines (thank you for counting for me), ...

Actually... your posting header does it for you.  I'm much to lazy
to count all the lines myself. :)

>as its content makes implicit. Quoting them was not out of order.
>
>2) The system on which I work does not send me the warning you
>mention, automatically or otherwise.

That's a shame.  It should.

>3) It does mean me: I am not a Netiquette artist, I am a
>scientist. Sorry if I have offended you with my lack of savvy in
>this respect.

No... I'm not offended at all.

But this doesn't mean you can't teach yourself proper Net
Etiquette?

There are numerous articles available on the internet for such a
purpose.  Try finding and reading Emily Post-it NetEtiquette Guide
for new users or looking into various Newbie's NGs.

But of course... there are those who they now refer to as Permanent
newbies... I guess you can remain in that group of you like?

That's up to you.

>4) I don't think I am above this, anything, or anyone. You don't
>know me: don't judge me.

Sorry... I'm not exactly judging you... just being a net-cop and
trying to tell you that you are wasting computer resources when you
do excessive quoting.

And I think I proved some of my point when you choose to reply to
this again like you have???

>5) We are all busy. I am also a freshman Netter and I haven't
>found how to select blocks of text in my e-mail software (PINE).
>The instructions are to put ctrl-carets (^) at either end of the
>text I want to select, but this doesn't seem to work in "French
>land" where a caret is a circumflex accent and is not located at
>the same place on our keyboards.
>This makes deleting long blocks of text very tedious.

??? Ummm. You are editing on-line then?

Ok... that is harder to do... I agree.

That's why I tend to retrieve files into my account filelist...
send it to my home computer (I use Kermit).  Go off-line.

Call it up in a wordprocessor (which automatically converts ASCII).
And then take my time replying, editing with block, thinking about
what I am writing... and doing a spellcheck at the end (which
sometimes things still gets through?).  Save each file as an ASCII.

Then when I am done with all my mail replies... go back on-line and
transfer these new files back into my account and send or post.

I don't know if this is indeed the easiest way of doing all this?
But it saves on on-line time, makes cleaner, more efficient replies
and saves on space.

>I should have asked my systems manager, as this is an editing
>feature I would use quite often (though not in my previous posting
>you refer to, for reason explained in item 1). Call it busy, call
>it lazy, what have you.

>6) You don't know? but you judge me?

It just reminded me of some MD's I've worked with who don't bother
to read the instructions on the equipment they use... and end up
either doing things inaccurately or actually breaking the thing.

One particular guy comes to mind... who we could never get him to
train on the high speed centrifuge (kept insisting he knew how to
do it)... and would never sign in on the sign-in books (because he
refused to admit he used it as often as he did so he didn't have to
share in the cost of a maintenance contract)... and then would
constantly forget to put the lid on the rotor.

After one specific time too many... when one of use wasn't around
to watch him... the rotor came up off the pin and smashed into the
sides of the encasement.  What a mess and what damage (well over
$1000 worth).  All because he wouldn't bother to let anyone teach
him or to read on how to do it?

In this case... we have a wonderful resource in the internet.
Which is growing, with more and more people each day using it...
and it's shame to put additional stress on the system by doing such
excess quoting?  They call it net-abuse.  Though... not as bad as
some other forms of abuse (like spamming and what-have-you).  But
still, a resource we should try and take better care of?

I know we all feel like we have important things to say (and many
of the things are indeed important)... but we really don't need
excessive quoting to accomplish that?

>7) If its done constanty (sic), not only by me, why do you pick on
>me (when I was actually quoting the comments I *was* commenting
>on, though I admit to other offenses of this sort)? Why make your
>comments personal, yet post them publicly?

Sorry... I was making an example (in more ways then one?).

As for why you... because it just struck me when I was reading your
reply and keep hitting page down/page down etc... until I finally
found your reply of two whole lines!

And to post it publicly... well, maybe I shouldn't have done that?

I was just thinking how this would be a good way of introducing a
new side topic.  Of the 'It's not my money" mentality I've ran into
while working in labs.

I guess I broke another net etiquette rule... remember there is a
human being on the other side and that you are just not talking to
a computer.

I admit I tend to do that myself occasionally (as others have
kindly pointed out in the past).

Thus, we are all not perfect.  And I am sorry.

>8) Come check my books before you start questionning the
>appropriateness of my lab expenses.

I wrote:

>>Such attitudes can be found in purchasing lab equipment as
>>well... or just plain spending government monies.
>>
>> Great wastes goes on... then complaints that there isn't a
>>yearly increase in NIH monies?
>

I did not write this personally to *you* and your lab equipment.
I have no idea how you run your lab?

I was just trying to connect how such attitudes can *also* be found
in purchasing lab equipment.

I'm sorry if you got such an inference?  I didn't mean it in *that*
way.

Personally... I think to one extent or another, we all do this.

I need to purchase some materials.  The company which offers a
cheaper price for it has it on backorder for 3-4 months.  I don't
have that kind of time... so I spend the extra money to get it
faster.

It's just that there are some who do it to a much larger (wasteful)
extent...

People who don't take good care of their surgical instruments...
abuses them.  And then when they don't work that well anymore...
buy a complete set of new ones.  This is a waste of money and
resources... when all they had to do was take the extra time to
properly clean them and put them away (and send them out for a good
cleaning/repair every so often).

>My conduct in this matter is irreproachable.

Ok.  Again, I really wasn't meaning you personally.
Sorry.

>Your comment is very close to libel!

Really?  Ok... so sue me.

I should warn you... that I don't have any money.

>9) You made a rather long posting yourself (I'll let you count the
>number of lines, since you seem to have the time to spare), which
>brought absolutely nothing to the thread. Is this proper
>netiquette?

The point was they were mostly original lines and not re-quoting.

As for whether I am wasting space with what I have to say?  Well,
that's a personal opinion which can very from reader to reader.

BTW, I never said what *you* had to say or contribute wasn't worth
posting... now did I?

But this all still leaves the question of why we have such
attitudes in research?  ...in general.

That it's not my money and it doesn't matter?

Because I do think this type of attitude does tend to go to the
core of what we have been talking about.

When one does sloppy work (or mis-conduct/fraud).... it's a waste
of time and resources and money.

Think about it.

And in general... some of this is connected to a superior attitude
of feeling above having to do things properly.

I've read some articles which talks about the arrogance of
scientists or their egos.

I do think to a certain extent... we need to have a bit bigger egos
and 'some' arrogance.  After all... isn't is a bit egotistic to
think we can actually discover something significant... unlock some
of the mysteries of nature?  Thus, you sort've have to start out
with an ego in the first place?

But has it become too excessive these days?

To the point of being unreprochable... tunnel vision and unwilling
to accept other possibly better ideas or view points?

I mean, we all have talked about not so healthy competition and
it's results.  And about a lack of ethics.  But what about this
ego/arrogance thing?

I've said that today's pursuit for scientific truths is greatly
interfered with politics, greed and ego.

So what about ego?

Any comments?

-Kathy



More information about the Bioforum mailing list