Reply to Quick IHC question (jan schnupp )

Subject: Reply to Quick IHC question
From:    jan schnupp  <jan.schnupp(at)PHYSIOL.OX.AC.UK>
Date:    Tue, 22 May 2001 17:08:38 +0100

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

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University