But the amount of time spent on turning a protein into a publishable structural data is pretty much same, if not larger. There are no low hanging fruits any more.
On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:50 AM, Frank von Delft wrote:
> 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
|