steffen@merlin.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen) (10/10/90)
In article <9812@ur-cc.UUCP> elmo@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Cabot) writes: >I have to agree [that there are too few net-literate biologists] >to some extent. However, I personally have another >problem with participating in some of the debates on the network, namely >redundancy. [Discussion of problems with sci.bio deleted] (1) sci.bio is not bionet.population-bio. I find sci.bio useless for the reasons you give, but none of these reasons apply to the bionet newgroups, imho. (2) The only noise complaints I have heard on the bionet groups have concerned discussions like this. I think we are still struggling to find a home for them. For myself, I have largely shut up until this resolves itself. (3) I have noticed that traffic on this group has all of a sudden picked up. I think that there is an autocatalytic process in these groups, where traffic generates traffic, which, to a point, is good. (4) How do we keep bionet.* from degenerating into sci.bio? Just hope, I guess. -David Steffen-