I think in the spirit of the season and the aftermath of 9-11 we should drop this thread now, it seems to be spiraling out of control. I will say this - Paul, you are right that for publication people should not use FL1, FL2, FL3. How much detail is provided is an appropriate thing to consider, I myself place it in the context of what the paper is discussing. If it is a paper advancing the art of flow cytometry, it should have as much detail as possible. For a paper discussing, for example, phenotypic analysis of lymphocytes I would think that saying CD4-FITC should be more than sufficient. For this forum, however - in my humble opinion I think you are dead wrong. In the 6 years or so I've been a member this is and always has been a safe haven for new flow users to find out what they need to know without being attacked. Correcting their flow "grammar" is appropriate, as is pointing people to the archives to answer a question. But the manner in which this email was answered in this case can hardly be called polite. To be honest I was absolutely shocked at what can only be called a rant - it goes totally against the grain of this forum and unlike anything I've seen while I've been a member. Sincerely, Doug Reed Douglas S. Reed, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Respiratory and Mucosal Immunity Department of Aerobiology & Product Evaluation Division of Toxinology & Aerobiology U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases 1425 Porter St. Ft. Detrick Frederick, MD 21702-5011 301-619-6728 301-619-6911 (Fax) doug.reed@det.amedd.army.mil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:01:44 EST