Len,
The news that the discussion group will not be password protected is great. I missed any discussion of this decision and so was in the dark.
I wouldn't mind seeing some discussion of password protecting the JBT. My opinion is that it would be counterproductive.
And please don't take offense but if I have to check with the EB before voicing my opinion on this discussion group or any other venue my ABRF membership card is in the trash can.
Paul
-- ____________________________________ Paul Morrison JFB216 paul_morrison@dfci.harvard.edu Molecular Biology Core Facilities Dana-Farber Cancer Institute http://mbcf.dfci.harvard.edu 44 Binney Street 617-632-3082 Boston, MA 02115 fax 632-4814 ____________________________________Len Packman <lcp2@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >Bulletin board - password access.....not! >Dear Paul > > >You are creating unnecessary alarm on the bulletin board >concerning freedom of access to the discussion group. As you >are aware, there have been serious discussions about password >access to both the bulletin board and to JBT. In recent months, >these discussions have continued and matured, taking into >consideration the opinions of members through informal >discussions. The outcome has been that the EB does NOT have any >plans to restrict access to this discussion group to ABRF >members. I would have preferred that you check on the current >facts with an EB member before voicing opinion on this matter. >We look forward to continued participation and/or"lurking" from >members and non-members alike. > > >We are currently having discussions with HighWire to house the >JBT on that site. If this comes to fruition, the journal will >be restricted access to members and subscribers. > > >The EB will shortly be responding to the matter regarding PARG >and we thank everyone for their input. > > >Len > > > > > And since I've just donned my asbestos suit I feel safe in throwing in my > two cents again about making the abrf discussion group password protected > and for ABRF members only. Let's think how useful those non-paying lurkers > are. Are we doing it to get a few more membership dollars and miss out on > their expertise? Are we going to force people who don't really fit the ABRF > mold (whatever that is) to become ABRFers just so they can listen in on the > discussion group? Are we doing it to get rid of junk mailers? Are these > valid reasons? OK, I'm getting carried away with the >questions. > > Let's have a discussion. >Paul, (I know sequencable is not a word), Morrison > >-- > ********************************************************************* > Dr Len C. Packman > Assistant Director of Research > Department of Biochemistry > University of Cambridge > 80 Tennis Court Road > Cambridge, CB2 1GA, UK > > Tel: +44 (1223) 333639нн FAX: +44 (1223) 766002 > e-mail: l.c.packman@bioc.cam.ac.uk > > Protein and Nucleic Acid Chemistry Facility >http://www.bio.cam.ac.uk/proj/adr/PNAC/pnac.html >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 09:18:08 EST