Since we learn a lot from this BB, here is a new view.. ;)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rajan Pillai <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Ratio of Number of Reflections to Number of
restrained Parameters
To: Partha Chakrabarti <[log in to unmask]>
Dude no offense, your response is just another classic example where
people try to prove knowing much, without even knowing what they know
and what they don't. As a request, please do not assume this
scientific newsgroup as any other newsgroups on yahoo or orkut for
your past time. It helps to maintain the purpose of this newsgroup.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Partha Chakrabarti <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dude, no offenses.. but I believe that person is a native speaker and
> a developer in CCP4.. people who usually understand York if you say
> Y.. and teach people for free..
>
> if you care to read, there is a refinement program called restrain..
> also probably regarding rotation function etc.. check out the
> acknowledgment of Blundell Johnson..
>
> It helps to keep that arrogance at the doorstep..
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Rajan Pillai <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > The question was well crafted. It behooves on part of the respondent to
> > understand the question or clarify before answering.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ian Tickle
> > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Agreed - but it wasn't entirely clear from the original question that
> >> this was the purpose of the calculation. Assuming that is the case then
> >> it surely behoves subscribers as far as possible to ask the right
> >> questions, or at least explain their reasons for needing to perform the
> >> calculation: it should not be assumed that others will understand what
> >> you meant to say, as opposed to what you did say!
|