RWHARRISON@uams.bitnet (BOB HARRISON) (05/29/90)
Messages are occasionally posted on this board requesting a direct replay. While this may serve a purpose by reducing the volume of board messages, it negates an important board function of informing us of answers to various questions that may not be of immediate interest but are useful things to know. Bob Harrison
kristoff@genbank.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) (05/29/90)
> Messages are occasionally posted on this board requesting a direct replay. > While this may serve a purpose by reducing the volume of board messages, it > negates an important board function of informing us of answers to various > questions that may not be of immediate interest but are useful things to know. The default for all of the BIOSCI nodes except IRLEARN is for replies to go only to the poster of the message being replied to. This not only reduces the number of copies of similar answers to a query, but also prevents people from embarassing themselves in public (e.g., whoops, you mean what I said was braodcast to everyone?!?). However this does give a false impression of inactivity on the groups. If you think that your response is of general interest, all one need do to copy a reply to the newsgroup is to include the newsgroup address in your response. This is usually done by "cc"ing the newsgroup address. If you don't know how to do this with your mail program, ask your local systems administrator. Most mail programs should have a means of adding (or subtracting) addresses to a message after it is composed but before it is sent. For example, in UNIX mail one could enter the line ~c methods@genbank.bio.net to cc the newsgroup METHODS-AND-REAGENTS. This can be entered at any time while composing one's message. In the "mm" mail program the cc command can be used at the S> prompt before sending, e.g., S> cc methods@genbank.bio.net S> send In the vnews UNIX USENET newsreading software one can use the "f" (followup) command to reply to the newsgroup or the "r" (reply) command to reply just to the poster of the first message. Perhaps others familiar with other mail programs could post some similar examples. -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank On-line Service Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net
steffen@hawk.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen) (08/03/90)
In article <9008021713.AA04687@genbank.bio.net> David Kristofferson) writes: >The default for all of the BIOSCI nodes except IRLEARN is for replies >to go only to the poster of the message being replied to. This not >only reduces the number of copies of similar answers to a query, but >also prevents people from embarassing themselves... >However this does give a false impression of inactivity on the groups. >If you think that your response is of general interest, all one need >do ...in the vnews UNIX USENET newsreading software [is] use the "f" >(followup) command to reply to the newsgroup or the "r" (reply) >command to reply just to the poster of the first message. >Perhaps others familiar with other mail programs could post some >similar examples. In the program I use, 'rn', (under unix running on a Sun) one types 'f' to post a response to the bulletin board (e.g. bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts), or 'F' to include a copy of the article you are responding to (as I did here) or 'r' if you DON'T want to post to the whole world, but just send email to the poster. My original response to this message terminated here, concluding with a bit of self deprecating humor and gentle encouragement to the reader to have no fear, that computers were your friend, and to jump right in and try posting.... HOWEVER The filthy UN*X software wouldn't take my article BECAUSE I DIDN'T WRITE ENOUGH!!! I could have just said what I had to say, having done a minor mitzvot by adding my microscopic bit of wisdom to the net and to the molecular biology community BUT NO, because the amount of new material I added did not exceed the amount of material I quoted, IT REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO POST! [FLAME ON] If I ever catch the SOB's from Bell Labs who invented UN*X, I will dry their hair with my microwave. I ought to get even with AT&T by posting instructions on how to build a blue box! [FLAME OFF] I apologize to one an all for this childish display of verbiage, but really, if I am to be allowed to post this at all, I have to use lots and lots of words. And people make fun of my Macintosh. Semi-seriously, those of you who wonder why biologists stay away from computers, consider this: If my scintillation counter, or spectrophotometer, or whatever ever did something like this to me, I would send it right back to Beckman. And I _like_ computers. -David Steffen- (steffen@mbir.bcm.tmc.edu)
kristoff@genbank.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) (08/03/90)
Dan Davison already replied to this on bionet.general. USENET news software is not really a part of the UNIX operating system per se, but should be considered an application that runs under UNIX. Note that there is a hypercard stack available from SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU that allows one to use a networked Macintosh to read news. Progress is being made in the user-friendliness arena. We don't have your problem with our news software on GOS. I think you just "lucked out" with the version that your systems manager put up. I intend sometime in the next few days to post a summary of my BIO-MATRIX meeting talk on electronic communications for biologists to bionet.molbio.bio-matrix which includes details on the above, but just haaven't had time to put it together yet. What I find a bit amusing about all of this is the fact that so far the indications are that the Genome Project wishes to invest minimal effort in this arena. This is probably just one example of many pitfalls that could be avoided if biological networking was given a higher level of priority. -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank On-line Service Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net
jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) (08/03/90)
Having flamed in public to my own embarrassment more times than I care to admit, and having been burned by 'stupid' fences built into the software, I preface this message by saying 'I understand where you're coming from'. That said, it seems you have some (all too common) misconceptions on several points. > The filthy UN*X software wouldn't take my article BECAUSE I DIDN'T > WRITE ENOUGH!!! I believe this is a (perhaps misbegotten) attempt to enforce a point of net-etiquette: namely, it is considered bad form to post a followup article which contains only the quoted article plus a few lines of added comments - which is exactly what you were about to do. If you think about it, this is a reasonable policy. Whether or not the news software should enforce it in this way, apparently without explaining the reason behind the limitation is another story. Include enough of the message, quoted appropriately, to make it clear what your comments are referring to, but *no more*. In some cases, you may need to paraphrase the gist of the previous article. Remember, readers of your article can usually go back and retrieve the entire article if necessary. If you get the standard USENET groups, subscribe to the 'news.announce.newusers' group. There is a wealth of information there for novice netters. > ...BUT NO, because the amount of new > material I added did not exceed the amount of material I quoted, IT > REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO POST! > ... > really, if I am to be allowed to post this at all, I have to use lots > and lots of words. If the included text is longer than your comments, you need to ask yourself 'is my comment really worth posting to the world?'. If it is, then maybe you need to reduce the quoted part. The intent is to *reduce* the amount of 'noise' on the newsgroups, not increase it! > The filthy UN*X software... Rn, that 'filthy' software which finally did post your message, after trying vainly to keep you from embarrassing yourself :-), is not 'Unix software'. It was written (primarily) by Larry Wall at the JPL who, out of a spirit of community, developed it and gave it to your site for the asking. If you had any idea of how complex a beast it is, and the work that went into it; or how much Baylor would have had to pay if AT&T had written it, I'm sure you wouldn't think so little of it. You must understand that a lot of the 'Unix software' owes a great deal to such unpaid efforts. There hasn't been enough of a market for any company to sink a great deal of money into. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft has spent more developing MS-WORD or OS/2 than AT&T has spent on Unix in all of it's 20+ years. Most of these people have 'real' work to do (unlike us :-)) and the last thing on the list is to 'idiot-proof' it. This is changing rapidly, fortunately for all of us. > Semi-seriously, those of you who wonder why biologists stay away from > computers, consider this: If my scintillation counter, or > spectrophotometer, or whatever ever did something like this to me, I > would send it right back to Beckman. And I _like_ computers. Have you ever returned an instrument because *you* didn't know how to use it? Unix really ought to better, but consider this - it takes a significant amount of effort to learn to use those instruments effectively (I mean other than just rote button-pushing). Yet I've seen so many 'biologists' sit down and expect to carry out a complex task on the computer *without so much as cracking a book*. Yes, it shouldn't be any harder than it needs to be, but most people have very unrealistic expectations about using a computer. > If I ever catch the SOB's from Bell Labs who invented UN*X, I will dry > their hair with my microwave. ... That's odd, I believe the computer science community awarded Ken Thompson their highest honor for just that accomplishment. In spite of it's geeky, unfriendly appearance, Unix has contributed tremendously toward making computers really useful, and will continue to do so. Unix has plenty of room to grow. Think about it - if we were all using Macs, there wouldn't be a newsgroup to soak up all this excess time we have on our hands! Maybe that wouldn't be so bad... :-) <Joe -- Joe Smith University of Pennsylvania jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics (215) 898-8348 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6059