fluorescence assays -DNA hybridization q

Bernard Murray bernard at elsie.nci.nih.gov
Mon Jan 20 20:22:06 EST 1997

In article <19970120013200.UAA25516 at ladder01.news.aol.com>, dnabill at aol.com 

I personally didn't see the posting as "trash" as the author quite
clearly stated their commercial standing on the information contained
and the post itself did contain real information rather than simply
being a blatant advert.

I wouldn't normally respond to such flamebait but there was
a rush of postings from your e-mail address about a year ago
that claimed they had heard wonderful news about a particular
product.  The posts failed to state that the e-mail address
was that of the president/CEO of the company that produced the
wonderful product (the "friend" never posted directly).  I belive
the posts are all still in the bionet archives.
	This thus sounds as if you shouldn't be throwing stones
when your track record (fake posts) is worse than that of
the person you are criticising who drew attention to real
information associated with a commercial product.  Perhaps you
have some sort of competition with the other poster in which case
you should state that or simply retrict the name calling to
private exchanges.

I have no commercial connection with either the company associated
with the original post or the company of which dnabill is/was

Bernard Murray, Ph.D.
bernard at elsie.nci.nih.gov (National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda MD, USA)

More information about the Methods mailing list