In article <djackson-250794150808 at 220.127.116.11>,
Don Jackson <djackson at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> wrote:
>In article <310kcl$cof at news.doit.wisc.edu>, lehn at islet.medsch.wisc.edu>wrote:
>>>>> I've been noticing that the methods-reagents traffic is
>> increasing. Perhaps it is time that this group is split
>>>> May I suggest:
>>Personally, I'd be against it. All of those categories include information
>of interest and relevance to me, so I'd end up reading all of them. I
>suspect this would be true for a good many people for just about any
I agree with Don. Every six months somebody decides that they don't
like the number of posts on METHODS, and every six months, we say
"DON'T SPLIT OUR NEWSGROUP!!!!!!!!".
- By Usenet standards, METHODS is a medium-volume newsgroup. Posts
haven't increased drastically (if at all) since the last call.
- Most people like the range of topics there and will pick up all the
splitoffs, so what's the point of the split. Also, and very
importantly, most PCR posts would get crossposted to DNA, or DNA
extraction posts for PCR would get crossposted in DNA and PCR, etc etc
etc. Splitting up newsgroups which then have severe crossposting
problems is not worthwhile,, especially since many readers (esp. email
ones) don't know about crossposts, and multiply post.
- If you're an email reader upset by volume, get a newsfeed. I find
it difficult to believe that newsfeeds are hard to come by these days
- even BBS systems carry bionet now.
- If you already receive news, use a threaded newsreader, or do post
selection by subject. Except (maybe) for some VAX/VMS sites, nearly
all newsreaders have subject selectors.
Bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts is one of the scarce, *real*, non-toy
resources on usenet, and should be nurtured, not destroyed.
John Nash | Email: nash at nrcbsa.bio.nrc.ca
Institute for Biological Sciences | http://cansnd.cisti.nrc.ca/~nash/home.html
National Research Council of Canada| for an eclectic collection of
All opinions are mine, not NRC's! | WWW molbio and other services.