Bionet.microbiology AND Sci.bio.microbiology
una at doliolum.biology.yale.edu
Tue Sep 6 10:41:30 EST 1994
Andreas Brune <Andreas.Brune at uni-konstanz.de> wrote:
>Regarding the proposed newsgroup charter of sci.bio.microbiology, these
>are mostly topics we should be discussing here. And bionet.microbiology
>is definetely not a _technical-related_ newsgroup just because people
>ask questions about techniques.
The technical focus was the principal argument given for putting the
current microbiology newsgroup in bionet.*.
In order to avoid splitting the vote for bionet.microbiology, I put
the sci.bio.microbiology proposal on hold. Now, I've resumed it.
As a courtesy to bionet.microbiology readers, I have included this
group in the distribution of the RFD, but if you prefer, I will not
post futher announcements here about sci.bio.microbiology.
Although on the one hand having two microbiology newsgroups may split
the traffic between them, there are advantages too. One of them is
to mend the bad feelings generated during the bionet.microbiology
RFD. Many Usenet readers (from the sci.bio.* side, if you will)
followed the debate in bionet.general, and I had several personal
e-mail messages from scientists who complained of feeling unwelcome
in bionet.*, given the remarks made about sci.bio.*. The cross-
posting that might result between sci.bio.microbiology and
bionet.microbiology could, I hope, help to build a stronger biology
research community in Usenet.
I hope that many of you will vote YES for sci.bio.microbiology, and
read it as well as bionet.microbiology, if you have access to Usenet.
Una Smith smith-una at yale.edu
Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8104 USA
More information about the Microbio