Yes I agree. As a user of a variety of microscopies,
Brightfield, phase, fluorescence, confocal,
SEM, STM and AFM, I think bionet.microscopy seems a natural
for the net.
In article <1992Mar26.154049.15650 at doc.ic.ac.uk>, ajt at doc.ic.ac.uk (Tony Travis) writes:
>>mwfolsom at hydra.unm.edu (Mike Folsom) writes:
> : In article <1992Mar24.135429.20934 at doc.ic.ac.uk> ajt at doc.ic.ac.uk (Tony Travis) writes:
> : ---- stuff deleted ----
> : >
> : >What about bionet.confocal ;-)
> : >
> : > Tony
> : >
> :
> : Actually, it seems to me that something like bionet.microscopy might
> : be a good idea. I've been thinking about this for a while. There
> : doesn't seem to be a group on the topic and there really should
> : be some forum to discuss various problem encountered in microscopic
> : research and how different folks get around them. It strikes me
> : that a group just on confocals might be a bit too limited right
> : now, there just ain't enough of 'em out there, but a group on all
> : aspects of microscopy from LM to TEM to LSCM might work. Anyway,
> : I like the idea of mixing things up because after my experiences
> : with a confocal scope the old boundaries don't seem as fixed as they
> : use to be. For example, who would of thought that the confocal
> : microscope would bring back the old clearing techniques and paraffin
> : histology - *well* - I bet they will (especially for me).
>> I agree with your comments.
>> I think you should put it forward as a serious proposal if there is a
> lot of interest.
>> There were over a hundred messages posted on the confocal list last
> year so it's not as dormant as you might think!
>> Tony
>> --
> Tony Travis <ajt at uk.ac.sari.rri> | Dr. A.J.Travis
> | Rowett Research Institute,
> | Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen,
> | AB2 9SB. UK. tel 0224-712751
>>
