Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!iuvax!bionet!bcm!merlin.bcm.tmc.edu
From: steffen@merlin.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen)
Newsgroups: bionet.general
Subject: Re: What/who is bionet
Message-ID: <1969@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Date: 19 Sep 90 15:26:19 GMT
References: <9009190312.AA08209@lash.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: usenet@bcm.tmc.edu
Followup-To: bionet.general
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Lines: 53
Nntp-Posting-Host: merlin.bcm.tmc.edu

clark@mshri.utoronto.ca (Steve Clark) writes:
[In response to my suggestion that responses to questions on bionet
 newsgroups should be made by email and a summary posted by the questioner]

>I don't remember that the conclusion was as clear cut as this. If it was, I
>should have spoken up then. 
>These newsgroups should be like large round-table discussions, 
>where everyone has a chance to say their piece, and hear what other people 
>have said. ... If all the responses go to the original poster, 
>rather than to the newsgroup as a whole, all these opportunities for 
>information exchange are lost...please always respond to the net, not 
>to the original poster (or at least as well as to the original poster).

Well, I am willing to go along with the will of the group; I don't find
the noise level on the bionet groups to be an issue yet.  IMHO there
is place for both approaches, however.  The current discussion clearly
need to be roundtable.  A relatively basic question on
bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts, however, could generate a lot of
redundant, basic responses.  If the questioner receives all responses,
summarizes, and posts back to the net, what is lost?  Further
discussion, if necessary, can take place then.

>In terms of making it easier for network novices to get involved in 
>newsgroup discussions, it  might help to have the return address of the 
>*newsgroup* as part of the message.
I don't know to what extent anything I do has anything to do with
this; I am VERY MUCH a net novice.  However, while composing this
response I noticed that the newsgroup was listed as bionet.followup
rather than bionet.general, so I changed it.  Further, there was no
followup: newsgroup given, so I added bionet.general.  Was this good?
Was this bad? Was this pointless?  Only by the flames in my mailbox
will I know.

>One further point. The return 
>address of the poster is often not decipherable by a network novice, so why 
>not include it after you signature to make it easier?
Good point!  I have been doing this sporadically, not knowing if this
is a good idea or not.  I guess I should do it all the time.
Incidentally, I notice you give two addresses:
>clark@mshri.utoronto.ca  (Internet)
>clark@utoroci            (Netnorth/Bitnet)
Only the (Internet) one do I understand.  I have no idea how someone
not on Internet should reach me.  Thus, I remain...

-David Steffen- (steffen@mbir.bcm.tmc.edu) <= Internet

P.S. My first post to the original discussion included an
ill-considered anti-UNIX/rn tirade due to the fact that Pnews
discarded my original message because I quoted more than I said.  I
just had to hand count the number of quoted and original lines to make
sure this didn't happen again.  Despite my boundless admiration for
UNIX and all the wonderful people associated with it, it still feels
wrong to me to have to do this counting.