Importance of this forum/Use of FL1, FL2/FACS Questionif you think a thread
is junk, delete and ignore it (both if possible, but primarily the latter)
merry christmas
hjh
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Beernink [mailto:ABeernink@novasite.com]
Sent: 21. december 2001 00:25
To: Cytometry Mailing List
Subject: RE: Importance of this forum/Use of FL1, FL2/FACS Question
Why don't we put Doug in charge of ALL questions which, due to their vague
nature, will require long and detailed follow-ups?
Spirit of the season I might agree with, but what does 9-11 have to do
with this thread?
The original intent of the thread is getting muddled (no thanks to me!).
The more appropriately detailed the question, the more likely and the more
detailed the response.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Reed, Doug S Dr USAMRIID [mailto:Doug.Reed@DET.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:23 PM
To: Cytometry Mailing List
Subject: Importance of this forum/Use of FL1, FL2/FACS Question
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 - 19:01:45 EST