CLARK at SALK-SC2.SDSC.EDU writes:
: I think it is unreasonable to assume that I will vote for a newsgroup one
: way or the other that I have no intention of reading. If there are enough
: botanists (or any other group) using the net that they think a newsgroup
: would be a benefit for them it's none of my business until the creation,
: deletion and other administration of underutilized groups requires so much
: time of the biosci staff that service of the other groups is degraded.
How do I find out if there are enough botanists using the net to justify
the creation of a news group unless I ask?
: Regarding sci and alt readers on bionet, bionet has hade enough
: unprofession discussion whose participants obviously have no idea (nor
: possibly any interest) in science, that I think we should make every effort
: to prevent more of them from occuring. On the other hand, people who are
: truly interested in the biological sciences should be informed of the
: existance of bionet. This does not mean that it should be acceptible for
: people to post questions to these groups that could be answered if they'd
: spent a few minutes in the library instead.
The purpose of an unmoderated public forum like bionet.general is to
allow everyone to contribute to a discussion. It is a matter of
opinion whether or not the discussions have been 'unprofessional'.
My objective is to locate people interested in applying image analysis
techniques to quantitative measurements of plant anatomy. It seems to
me that bionet.plants would be an appropriate place to discuss this,
and other plant related topics.
I'm pleased that I am able to use bionet.general to make contact with
other people interested in my field of work and I look forward to a CFV
on bionet.plants but I agree with others who have posted to this group
that the voting procedure should be clarified.
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
