IUBio

signal to noise on bionet ng's

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Sun Jan 10 02:40:41 EST 1999


To the extent that I'm involved in what you decry, I Apologize to you.

It's "just" that I've an Obligation to Science, yet the "metadiscussion"
follows me where ever I go, online, or offline.

It's so extremely Wasteful that the thought of what will never be
accomplished, be-cause of the Waste inherent, takes one's breath away.

But there's nothing that I can do about it.

Truth must be taken whole, sans "sucking-up" to folks who'd "steer" the
communication of Truth, or Truth is "Abandoned". Once Truth is
"Abandoned", everyone becomes Victimized by what's remains, in Truth's
stead. ken collins

Hemidactylus at my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> I posted on this n.g. a couple months ago and valued the level of signal to
> noise that resulted (on that thread). I got a lot of good input (wrt LTP),
> even the criticisms from LeFever, in retrospect, were good. I was a bit more
> critical of LTP as a result. Thanx everybody.
> 
> I've pretty much lurked for a while here, since this is a bionet group and I
> feel a certain level of respect is required. Relevant references are good
> too.
> 
> During this lurking, I've noticed a major problem with signal to noise. Are
> there any solutions for this? Is this happening on all bionet groups? Do most
> regulars just wield their killfiles or whatever?
> 
> Metadiscussion isn't always appreciated by ng regulars, but relative to some
> of the tangentialism and "hot air" here, I'm not too ashamed.
> 
> Scott Chase
> 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net