Reply to Quick IHC question

[jan schnupp <jan.schnupp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to disagree with DeLiang's comment:

At 14:14 21/05/01 -0400, DeLiang wrote:
>With due respect to knowledgeable respondents to the following inquiry, it
>would save us time and effort if replies were sent directly to the inquirer.
>If the inquirer later feels that some replies are worth general attention,
>he or she can send a digested summary to the entire list.
>

If DeLiang's proposal had been adhered to, I might have been deprived of
Jont Allen's lucid answer to a question which, to me at least, initially
sounded naive, but actually turned out to probe quite deeply into important
aspects of cochlear function.
Why was this particular enquiry singled out? Or is DeLiang suggesting that
no replies should ever be posted directly to the whole list? While there
may be the occasional flood of auditory list postings and replies of only
peripheral interest to some of us, I think it would be a pity to miss out
on the occasional gem. Perhaps  participants of the list should exercise
their judgement and decide whether their reply is likely to interest a fair
proportion of the list membership or only a few individuals, and address
their postings accordingly. But I do feel quite strongly that anyone who
feels they have something worthwhile to contribute should not hesitate to
address the list directly.

Jan
------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jan Schnupp
Oxford University, Laboratory of Physiology, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PT, U.K.
Tel (+44-1865) 272 513  Fax (+44-1865) 272 469