mark@elsie.UUCP (12/06/83)
We would most definitely be interested in a net.biology news group. Our facility at the National Cancer Institute's Laboratory of Carcinogen Metabolism is dedicated primarily to the totally automatic analysis of two-dimensional gel electrophoretograms (O'Farrel gels). We also have some programs to aid in nucleic acid research. We have a VAX 11/750 running 4.1 BSD (up to 4.2 as soon as Berkeley sends us the tape). We would be interested in hearing from and talking to other groups involved in or curious about the computerized analysis of two-dimensional gels. Other topics in biotechnology would also be of interest to us and other groups around the NIH. One last request: If such a group is started up, please let us try to restrict its use to serious science. Socio-political discussions are best put in net.flame, net.religion, net.misc, or any other group that I don't subscribe to. ..!cvl!elsie!mark
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (12/06/83)
>> One last request: If such a group is started up, please let us try to >> restrict its use to serious science. Socio-political discussions are best >> put in net.flame, net.religion, net.misc, or any other group that I don't >> subscribe to. >> ..!cvl!elsie!mark This sounds a lot like the argument that led to the creation of net.astro.expert (or even net.women.only! :-> ). I sometimes wonder about the elitist trend in certain newsgroups, but I suppose I've got no real objection as long as interested non-experts have a place to discuss things, too. After all, not all of us want to talk about analysis of two-dimensional gel electrophoretograms -- some of us are interested in things like evolution, population genetics, or wildlife biology. (I agree, by the way, that flaming non-scientific harangues would have no place in net.biology. I just wanted to point out that I, for one, would enjoy a middle ground between "serious science" and "socio-political discussions".) ---- Prentiss Riddle {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@ut-sally.UUCP
yechiel@aecom.UUCP (Yechiel Corn) (12/08/83)
I vote yes for net.biology. Representing a Medical college, I am sure
that many of our users who are researchers would be interested in
such a group.
Michael Corn
Albert Einstein College of Med.
Bronx, NY
{ pegasus,philabs,cucard }!aecom!yechieldavid@utzoo.UUCP (David Trueman) (12/08/83)
Another 'yes' vote for net.biology. Our site is a general zoology department.
While most of the users of the system are relatively unsophisticated in
computer usage, there are a few exceptions, and such a group might bring more
of them out of the woodwork.
--
David Trueman @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!davidrigney@uokvax.UUCP (12/13/83)
#R:elsie:-15100:uokvax:9300003:000:624 uokvax!rigney Dec 11 18:08:00 1983 Perhaps there should be a net.bio and a net.bio.expert. The latter could be used to discuss gels and other serious matters, while net.bio could be used by those just wanting some place to chat about population pressure, the effects of genetics on man- in-the-moon marigolds, and whatever else attracts their attention:-) This would allow expansion, if need be, to include net.bio.micro, for microbiology fans, net.bio.marine, for marine biologists, and so forth, as needed in the future. Is anyone worried that net.bio might be mistaken for net.biography? Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney
wombat@uicsl.UUCP (12/21/83)
#R:elsie:-15100:uicsl:8200002:000:1557 uicsl!wombat Dec 20 21:36:00 1983 Have any of you ever considered using net.med for biology discussions? It's not like net.med has a lot of traffic, and I thought that part of the reason it was created was so that various medical-type sites on the net would have a niche to call their own. Second point: How about a minimum of three weeks discussion before creating/removing any group? If a subject deserves its own group, it isn't going to go away (except in special cases like "The Day After"), it will give a lot of people time to hear that a group has been proposed/is about to be disposed of and give them time to make their feelings known, and it will give discussions that really are short-lived time to die, as well as giving the meta- discussions about whether to put all that garbage some people don't want to read into another group time to die out, also. I think Dr. Who probably ought to stay in net.sf-lovers; after all it's been running in the US for several years, and nobody wanted a group for it until the special (note the word special, as in event not happening often) ran. Third point: People just can't bring themselves to get rid of a group once it's been created. I wouldn't have the heart to kill net.wobegon, even if I weren't too shy to ask people for permission to kill it. Having lots of dead groups makes things even harder for the newcomer to the net, since they have to figure out where to send something after they get flamed at for writing in net.general. A list several miles long can be a bit discouraging. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat