In article <92129225642.MIN-LZLBa00330.bionet-news at uk.ac.daresbury> you wrote:
: [...]
: > If bionet.plants was overwhelmed by PHOTOSYN subscribers posting
: > articles about photosysnthesis I would accept that a new group was
: > mecessary, but why to you need to create another group in order to
: > persuade PHOTOSYN people to use bionet Jonathan?
: PHOTOSYN predates bionet.plants by nearly 2 years. There is a slow but
: steady traffic on PHOTOSYN. I certainly encouraged the PHOTOSYN
: membership to also use bionet.plants, but you may note that there was no
: great rush. Most of the list DON'T WANT to be involved with bionet.plants
: and PREFER to stick with PHOTOSYN.
So what is the issue here, Jonathan?
Why would the PHOTOSYN subscribers be any more inclined to use
bionet.photosyn than bionet.plants? I think you are confusing two
issues: the first is persuading PHOTOSYN subscribers to use
BIOSCI/bionet, the second is the issue of a separate newsgroup for
photosynthesis.
: Also, you should note that some researchers work on BACTERIAL
: photosynthesis and aren't even interested in plants (some are physical
: chemists who aren't really interested in Biology either, but that's another
: issue.
Yes, I accept that but the bionet.carotenoids vote failed recently for
lack of support.
: (Una Smith wrote)
: > : Perhaps it's time to create a new domain: I propose "bio", and thus
: > : bio.photosynthesis! I will be happy to propose this formally in
: > : bit.admin if Jonathan Marder, owner of PHOTOSYN, likes the idea. Or
: > : [...]
: >
: > what about the sci.* hierarchy?
: I do think that there is a quality issue here. What newspaper do you read,
: Tony? I sometimes think that sci.bio is the newgroup equivalent of "The
: Sun" (a trashy daily in the UK) while bionet is more like the
: Times/Guardian/Independent (the UK "serious" newpapers).
The newspaper I read is irrelevant to the discussion here, but the
prejudice you show against sci.bio is perhaps a little unfair. During
the initial discussions about bionet.plants I was also posting to
sci.bio and quite a few people noted that the distribution of the sci.*
groups was wider than that of bionet.*
I think the tendency of BIOSCI/bionet to indulge in extended political
discussions reveals that it is subject to the same pressures and
influences as the rest of Usenet. So, people in glass houses shouldn't
throw stones. Ultimately, the quality of a newsgroup reflects the
quality of the people contributing to it and I would welcome more
scientific discussion wherever it is on Usenet.
: Okay, I admit it - I also look at sci.bio when I have the time, but I'm
: reluctant to risk PHOTOSYN with that "publishing company".
Well, I read and enjoy sci.bio and sci.biotechnology.
Tony.
--
Dr. A.J.Travis, | Tony Travis
Rowett Research Institute, | JANET: <ajt at uk.ac.sari.rri>
Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, | other: <ajt at rri.sari.ac.uk>
Aberdeen, AB2 9SB. UK. | phone: 0224-712751
