Steven Poet <poets at ccmail.orst.edu> wrote:
>ijiwaru at nyc.pipeline.com (Lyle Najita) wrote:
>>> I can't speak for the working virologists on this group, but me personally
>> I feel an FAQ is unnecessary. Compiling an FAQ is a lot of work,
>> especially with the level of discussion you are asking for. There are any
>> number of good basic virology text books that already cover the topics you
>> listed above. Any good basic text will give you the info you request.
>> This is one thing that existing books already do far better than the net.
>>I'd much rather see some basic information about the
function of bionet.virology (ie, discussion and dissemination
of information of concern to professional virologists)
in FAQ format, rather than expecting new readers from
USENET to look up such information in other bionet newsgroups.
It wouldn't have to be long or involved (much better if
kept simple, in fact), but spell out a few basic ideas
about what bionet.virology *is*, and what it *isn't*.
A list of a few good reference virology texts wouldn't
The rapid growth of internet usage means inevitably that
noise-to-signal will increase, and we will see yet more
discussions about the rain forests' defense strategies,
glowing reviews of the Hot Zone and Coming Plague, etc.
And then, scathing admonitions for us to go "back to our
microscopes" when we object.