Is it too much to dream that Tom has set a trail-blazing precedent and
demonstrated to us all how unnecessary it is be anal about our
oh-so-precious data and structures that in the year 2013 are almost
completely useless without a huge dollop of other experimental data...?
On 27/03/2013 18:32, Anastassis Perrakis wrote:
> I think it will be the first time in 15 years I will disagree with Tim.
>
> I personally found the posting of Tom van der Bergh irritatingly disrespectful in many levels.
>
> 1. It does not respect my mailbox capacity
> 2. It does not respect CCP4 developers posting output from phenix.refine
> 3. It does not respect his supervisors and colleagues who (right now) look like fools (to me)
> 4. It does not respect himself, as I actually suspect he is a proactive motivated student who came out as a bit of a fool
>
> These said, I am rather easily irritated these days, so I will not comment on the irritable character of the email.
>
> As for the answers, some were funny, some were informative, some funny and informative.
> Not too much political correctness please, because we will soon start calling disordered loops
> positionally challenged polypeptide segments (*).
>
> Tassos
>
> (*) joke stolen from Thomas Schneider talk @Stanford, 1998. What a great meeting...!
>
>> Dear so-far-posters,
>>
>> I do not know Tom Van den Bergh, nor do I know his background, nor the
>> history of the data, nor the reasons why he may have sent it to this
>> list (although I think he did it to ask for help), but I find these
>> answers irritatingly disrespectful and nasty.
>>
>> No regards to the ones addressed,
>> Tim
|