From: "Ken Taylor" <KTAYLO@scri.sari.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 16:33:09 GMT
Subject: Lurkers united
To: Recipients of ABRF List <abrf@aecom.yu.edu>
Dear ABRFers,
I'm in the mood to add my tuppence worth to the discussion which has
been going on over the festive season. The whole debate on secrecy,
lurkers etc started because of someone being secretive of their
identity. I have to say I find it interesting and amusing that the
self-styled "lazy, uncompassionate anti-lurker" should wish the
anonymity afforded by the ombudsman. Aren't we all supposed to open
and frank here?
May I also suggest that perhaps his/her "fast and dirty" approach lead
to the oversight that many of the 600 possible lurkers were on
holiday over the festive period and are only now catching up on an
interesting debate. Many will no doubt decide not to chip in because
what they may want to say has been said before. This is also true of
scientific queries, I think you'll agree. Those of us outside the US
sometimes see questions and then relevant answers the day after the
discussions took place.
I will say that as a true democrat (US types please note lower case
d) I will defend anyone's right to express an opinion, however silly.
You may gather I disagree with the anti-lurker and I would not wish
to see any curtailing of this list.
I have learned a lot from this forum. When possible I will respond
to queries, often directly - particularly where the questioner is
obviously a beginner and requires basic help about things most of us
take as read.
However, much of the ABRF stuff relates to subjects I know nothing
about and don't currently work in, hence long periods of silence. It
is possible that in the future I may have to start working in protein
sequencing, for example, so while I lurk in the background, I can see
something of what's going on and certainly now recognise names whom I
could turn to for help, should I need it.
The answer b in the "final reply..." implies that manufacturers are
holding us back from discussing their equipment. As a non-American
my first thoughts are not of litigation, so I don't agree. If
someone asks my opinion on such I will be honest. Surely it's as
much in their interests as ours to hear us criticising things. We do
of course have to guard against bad-mouthing out of spite or personal
dislike of a company or individual. However, if criticism can be
justified why should it not be openly made? I can also recall cases
where manufacturers have directly come to the aid of some of us with
problems, sometimes with offers of free samples. They may have
commercial interests at heart but long may they (and others) lurk.
Thanks to all for an interesting start to the year, and to Ruth and
her cohorts - Lang may your lums reek!
Cheers, Ken.
Ken Taylor.
Peptide and DNA Services.
Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee.
Phone 01382 56 27 31 Fax 01382 56 24 26
WWW URL http://www.scri.sari.ac.uk/