flowcytometry
in Search
Welcome to Advenet Sign in | Join | Help

flowcytometry

ISAC Congress Mad Cow Paul Robinson

EMAIL ABUSE - how to stop

From: J.Paul Robinson (jpr@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 08:43:08 EST


Colleagues: I am sending out a copy of a message I have just sent to

 

RNWAY laboratories of South Korea and all 20 worldwide distributors of

 

RNWAY products most of whom are highly reputable companies. I am only

 

sending it to you because I am going to propose to create a small

 

"SCIENTISTS against EMAIL ABUSE" 

 

type of revolutionary action.........

 

I won't send you more copies of what I am going to send out,

 

But

 

I will post

 

them in a prominent place on our website so that you can follow and

 

participate in the action.

 

I am truly sick and tired of receiving literally dozens of

 

unsolicited crap  messages each day.

 

However, receiving them from supposedly reputable companies drives me really crazy.

 

These, I can do something

about and I am.

 

The rest are virtually beyoned any reasonable solution. As you

 

can see, I have

 

started with RNWAY, a company that I have requested a dozen

 

times to

 

remove me from their abusive lists. This week they sent

 

me an attachment to boot....

 

- something they do constantly. This made me really mad.

 

Perhaps it was the beef I ate in the UK this week, but

 

I got

 

really mad when RNWAY filled my box yet again.....

 

and I am going to set up a place where

 

people can register copies of messages they send recording their

 

requests

 

for removal.

 

This record will become a documentation place you

 

can copy

 

your messages to for any future legal actions.  We will code the

 

email

 

address of the requestor so you don't get further abuse, but we

 

will publish

 

the list of companies that continue to abuse us.

 

If you have suggestions, please let me know.

                

Sincerely

 

"Mad Cow" Paul Robinson

 

Purdue University

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here is the email that I sent to RNWAYs 20 worldwide distributors

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You are receiving this message if you are associated with RNWAY products.

We have continually requested removal from RNWAYS abusive and constant

emails.

 

It is against Federal law in the United States

 

to continue to send

unsolicited emails after requests to discontinue are made.

 

RNWAY posts a

privacy policy that they make no attempt to enforce. 

 

Our requests have been

documented by the university on numerous occasions.

 

RNWAY is now liable

 

in the United States for severe penalties under US law.

 

 

 As a distributor of this company you may also incur loss of trade, or reputation for the actions we are going to take.

 

As scientists who buy your products, we are going to exert our own economic power. We will be letting members of our various associated networks that RNWAY will be listed as an EMAIL SPAM ABUSER.

 

 We will be recommending that all of our users do not purchase any of their products if they continue to abuse our email accounts.

 

 

As a scientist who uses the INTERNET as a crucial component of my

communication with others,

 

I am sick of abuse of my email and I have

decided that I am going to do something about it, one company at a time.

 

This message has been copied to the 20 companies that distribute RNWAY

products around the world.

 

This is the first of a series of actions. It will also be

copied to 3000 scientists who may have an interest in stopping this type of

abuse.  

 

It will also be posted on a  public site that had last year over 5 million access.

 

If you as a distributor want to make a profit on selling (scientists)

products, I suggest you ensure that the comanies you deal with don't abuse

us.

 

 

If they do, we won't buy their products and you will lose money.

 

 Do you hear us?

 

Yours sincerely

J.Paul Robinson, Professor, Purdue University

------------------------------------------------

 

J.Paul Robinson, PhD             PH:(765)4940757

Professor of Immunopharmacology

Professor of Biomedical Engineering

Purdue University          FAX:(765)4940517

EMAIL:jpr@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu

WEB: http://www.cyto.purdue.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:42:13 EST

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

flowcytometry said:

Re: EMAIL ABUSE - how to stop

From: Adam Treister (adam@treestar.com)

Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 16:00:07 EST

•Next message: PAUL HALLBERG: "Summary: Sorting CHO cells"

•Previous message: Mojgan Shaiegan: "RBC phenotyping by flow"

•In reply to: J.Paul Robinson: "EMAIL ABUSE - how to stop"

•Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 05:43 AM, J.Paul Robinson wrote:

>

> Colleagues: I am sending out a copy of a message I have just sent to

> RNWAY laboratories of South Korea and all 20 worldwide distributors of

> RNWAY products most of whom are highly reputable companies. I am only

> sending it to you because I am going to propose to create a small

> "SCIENTISTS against EMAIL ABUSE"  type of revolutionary action.........

>

Paul,

Sounds like you're advocating fighting disease by eradicating the

antigen instead of boosting the immune response.  

You can organize all

you want on eliminating the pest,

but until they put a stamp tax on

email, a better approach is to let the

messages be out there,

but have them filtered to oblivion before you

ever see them.

In your case,

the postmaster at Purdue is probably already filtering

millions of messages a day

that come to the thousands of email users on

campus.

They are probably capable of shutting down any RNWAY mail,

and

spreading the word to other postmasters that they also should filter

those messages.

So if you can get the IT people at the university to tighten their

sieve, that's best. Otherwise you have to switch to an email program

that has good junk filters.  I think I get 500+ messages a day, and

only 10 to 20 make it past the junk filter.

Until last summer I was using Outlook Express and spam was a huge

problem. Since then I switched to the free Mail program in OS X, which

just added special features for spam detection and removal.  Its

probably 97% effective, and I haven't found any false positives.

So, of course, the best answer is to get a Mac  :)

I'm sure the PC mail clients are addressing this issue as well.  I

believe there are central databases of offenders so programs can learn

from others which messages to delete.   I would imagine this is the

most important feature in any email program sold these days, so I bet

Eudora or other third party mail programs have this solved.

There's a lot of information on the subject at:

http://spam.abuse.net/

Whether you fight the problem on the server or the client, it

definitely is worth getting it cleaned up.   I found it screwed up my

whole communications process because every time I wanted check email, I

had to wade through dozens or hundreds of useless ads.

Adam

---------------------------------------------------

Adam Treister

adam@treestar.com

www.flowjo.com  800-366-6045

---------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

•Next message: PAUL HALLBERG: "Summary: Sorting CHO cells"

•Previous message: Mojgan Shaiegan: "RBC phenotyping by flow"

•In reply to: J.Paul Robinson: "EMAIL ABUSE - how to stop"

•Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:42:13 EST

November 29, 2008 6:50 PM
 

flowcytometry said:

Re: EMAIL ABUSE - how to stop

From: Adam Treister (adam@treestar.com)

Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 16:00:07 EST

•Next message: PAUL HALLBERG: "Summary: Sorting CHO cells"

•Previous message: Mojgan Shaiegan: "RBC phenotyping by flow"

•In reply to: J.Paul Robinson: "EMAIL ABUSE - how to stop"

•Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 05:43 AM, J.Paul Robinson wrote:

>

> Colleagues: I am sending out a copy of a message I have just sent to

> RNWAY laboratories of South Korea and all 20 worldwide distributors of

> RNWAY products most of whom are highly reputable companies. I am only

> sending it to you because I am going to propose to create a small

> "SCIENTISTS against EMAIL ABUSE"  type of revolutionary action.........

>

Paul,

Sounds like you're advocating fighting disease by eradicating the

antigen instead of boosting the immune response.  You can organize all

you want on eliminating the pest, but until they put a stamp tax on

email, a better approach is to let the

messages be out there, but have them filtered to oblivion before you

ever see them.

In your case, the postmaster at Purdue is probably already filtering

millions of messages a day that come to the thousands of email users on

campus. They are probably capable of shutting down any RNWAY mail, and

spreading the word to other postmasters that they also should filter

those messages.

So if you can get the IT people at the university to tighten their

sieve, that's best. Otherwise you have to switch to an email program

that has good junk filters.  I think I get 500+ messages a day, and

only 10 to 20 make it past the junk filter.

Until last summer I was using Outlook Express and spam was a huge

problem. Since then I switched to the free Mail program in OS X, which

just added special features for spam detection and removal.  Its

probably 97% effective, and I haven't found any false positives.

So, of course, the best answer is to get a Mac  :)

I'm sure the PC mail clients are addressing this issue as well.  I

believe there are central databases of offenders so programs can learn

from others which messages to delete.   I would imagine this is the

most important feature in any email program sold these days, so I bet

Eudora or other third party mail programs have this solved.

There's a lot of information on the subject at:

http://spam.abuse.net/

Whether you fight the problem on the server or the client, it

definitely is worth getting it cleaned up.   I found it screwed up my

whole communications process because every time I wanted check email, I

had to wade through dozens or hundreds of useless ads.

Adam

---------------------------------------------------

Adam Treister

adam@treestar.com

www.flowjo.com  800-366-6045

---------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

•Next message: PAUL HALLBERG: "Summary: Sorting CHO cells"

•Previous message: Mojgan Shaiegan: "RBC phenotyping by flow"

•In reply to: J.Paul Robinson: "EMAIL ABUSE - how to stop"

•Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:42:13 EST

November 29, 2008 6:51 PM
 

flowcytometry said:

Re: List reply-to setting.

From: J. Paul Robinson (jpr@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu)

Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 12:01:03 EST

• Next message: Leary, James: "RE: Labeling cells with beads"

• Previous message: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• In reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Echeagaray, Patricia L.: "RE: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

"Mark A. Corio" suggests the need for a listserve approach:

Here is my reply:

The lsit is run from my lab and Steve kelley send me your message.

The way our list is run is by intention. It is designed for maximum

value and least annoyance. We believe that a message that is to be

sent to the list myst be intentioned to the list. Otherwise

individuals communicate directly. We will not be changing this

method as it is the one favored overwhelmingly by the group. There

are virtually no trash emails on this group. There is a very good

reason for that. If anyone sends trash mail, they are rapidl;y

deleted from the list and their access is barred. This makes a very

strong incentive to keep a high quality of discussion. My experience

with listserves is the rubbish is overwhelming! We have considered

many times the advantages of a listserve , and the disadvantages far

outweigh them. Since we are one of the older scientific discussion

groups out there, our track-record speaks for itself. We do encourage

people to tabulate results of their questions. They invariably do

this and we thank you.

While, I appreciate this might generate some email, let's not fill

the box. We are NOT going to change it anyway!!!

regards

Paul Robinson

> From:        

"Mark A. Corio" <rmi@frontiernet.net>

> To:            Cytometry Mailing List <cytometry@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu>

> Subject:       List reply-to setting.

> Date:          Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:18:29 -0500

>

>

> Steve,

> Belonging to several lists, I found something unusual when I joined this

> list....the reply-to setting is to the original author instead of the list.

>  Several others mentioned it recently and I wonder if the list would like

> to have the reply-to set to the list so that more responses appear on-line

> instead of personal conversations. The list traffic goes up a little, but

> the responses are often more valuable with information than the original

> posts. Anyone else feel this would be a good idea? Is there a reason it is

> the way it is, Steve, that we shouldn't change it?

>

> Mark A. Corio

> Rochester MicroSystems, Inc.

> 200 Buell Road, Suite 9

> Rochester, NY  14624

> Tel: (716) 328-5850

> Fax: (716) 328-1144

> e-mail: rmi@frontiernet.net

> http://www.frontiernet.net/~rmi/

> ****** Designing Electronics for Research and Industry ******

>

J.Paul Robinson, Purdue University Cytometry Labs

Professor of Immunopharmacology

robinson@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu PH:765-494 6449 FAX:765-494 0517

web http://www.cyto.purdue.edu

________________________________________

• Next message: Leary, James: "RE: Labeling cells with beads"

• Previous message: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• In reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Echeagaray, Patricia L.: "RE: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

November 30, 2008 7:52 PM
 

flowcytometry said:

List reply-to setting.

From: Mark A. Corio (rmi@frontiernet.net)

Date: Mon Feb 09 1998 - 17:18:29 EST

• Next message: Ray Hicks: "Platelet preps"

• Previous message: Calman Prussin: "RE: Intracellular cytokine staining versus secreted cytokine"

• Next in thread: Steve Kelley: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe reply: Steve Kelley: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe reply: Mark A. Corio: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Reply: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Reply: J. Paul Robinson: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe reply: Echeagaray, Patricia L.: "RE: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe reply: N.W. BLACKHALL: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe reply: Barry Grimes: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

Steve,

Belonging to several lists, I found something unusual when I joined this

list....the reply-to setting is to the original author instead of the list.

Several others mentioned it recently and I wonder if the list would like

to have the reply-to set to the list so that more responses appear on-line

instead of personal conversations. The list traffic goes up a little, but

the responses are often more valuable with information than the original

posts. Anyone else feel this would be a good idea? Is there a reason it is

the way it is, Steve, that we shouldn't change it?

Mark A. Corio

Rochester MicroSystems, Inc.

200 Buell Road, Suite 9

Rochester, NY  14624

Tel: (716) 328-5850

Fax: (716) 328-1144

e-mail: rmi@frontiernet.net

http://www.frontiernet.net/~rmi/

****** Designing Electronics for Research and Industry ******

________________________________________

• Next message: Ray Hicks: "Platelet preps"

• Previous message: Calman Prussin: "RE: Intracellular cytokine staining versus secreted cytokine"

• Next in thread: Steve Kelley: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe reply: Steve Kelley: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe reply: Mark A. Corio: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Reply: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Reply: J. Paul Robinson: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe reply: Echeagaray, Patricia L.: "RE: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe reply: N.W. BLACKHALL: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe reply: Barry Grimes: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:12 EST

Re: List reply-to setting.

From: Steve Kelley (SKELLEY@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu)

Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 09:55:59 EST

• Next message: DEEKEWB@aol.com: "H33342 and RNA"

• Previous message: Derek Davies: "Re: cell cycle problems"

• Maybe in reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Mark A. Corio: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

As the list grew, I got the impression that most people

expected the 'reply' function in their e-mail client to send

a reply to the individual author.  I also felt that the 'hazards'

were very asymmetric - sending a generic response to an individual

is harmless, but sending a personal reply to the list by mistake could

be very embarassing.

I'm always open to suggestion, and I'd like to hear other people's

thoughts on the mechanics of the list. (And yes, I will be doing

daily digests relatively soon, I think, for those who want them.)

Steve

Steve Kelley            kelley@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu

Purdue University Cytometry Laboratories    (765) 494-0757  -- voice

B050 Hansen LSRB, Purdue University         (765) 494-0517  -- fax

West Lafayette, Indiana, 47907

________________________________________

• Next message: DEEKEWB@aol.com: "H33342 and RNA"

• Previous message: Derek Davies: "Re: cell cycle problems"

• Maybe in reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Mark A. Corio: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

Re: List reply-to setting.

From: J. Paul Robinson (jpr@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu)

Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 12:01:03 EST

• Next message: Leary, James: "RE: Labeling cells with beads"

• Previous message: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• In reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Echeagaray, Patricia L.: "RE: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

"Mark A. Corio" suggests the need for a listserve approach:

Here is my reply:

The lsit is run from my lab and Steve kelley send me

your message.

The way our list is run

is by intention.

It is designed for maximum

value and least annoyance.

We believe that a message that is to be

sent to the list myst be intentioned to the list. Otherwise

individuals communicate directly.

We will not be changing this

method as it is the one favored overwhelmingly by the group.

There are virtually no trash emails on this group.

There is a very good

reason for that. If anyone sends trash mail, they are rapidl;y

deleted from the list and their access is barred.

This makes a very

strong incentive to keep a high quality of discussion.

My experience

with listserves is the rubbish is overwhelming!

We have considered

many times the advantages of a listserve , and the disadvantages far

outweigh them.

Since we are one of the older scientific discussion

groups out there, our track-record speaks for itself.

We do encourage

people to tabulate results of their questions. They invariably do

this and we thank you.

While,

I appreciate this might generate some email, let's not fill

the box.

We are NOT going to change it anyway!!!

regards

Paul Robinson

> From:        

"Mark A. Corio" <rmi@frontiernet.net>

> To:            Cytometry Mailing List <cytometry@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu>

> Subject:       List reply-to setting.

> Date:          Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:18:29 -0500

>

>

> Steve,

> Belonging to several lists, I found something unusual when I joined this

> list....the reply-to setting is to the original author instead of the list.

>  Several others mentioned it recently and I wonder if the list would like

> to have the reply-to set to the list so that more responses appear on-line

> instead of personal conversations. The list traffic goes up a little, but

> the responses are often more valuable with information than the original

> posts. Anyone else feel this would be a good idea? Is there a reason it is

> the way it is, Steve, that we shouldn't change it?

>

> Mark A. Corio

> Rochester MicroSystems, Inc.

> 200 Buell Road, Suite 9

> Rochester, NY  14624

> Tel: (716) 328-5850

> Fax: (716) 328-1144

> e-mail: rmi@frontiernet.net

> http://www.frontiernet.net/~rmi/

> ****** Designing Electronics for Research and Industry ******

>

J.Paul Robinson, Purdue University Cytometry Labs

Professor of Immunopharmacology

robinson@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu PH:765-494 6449 FAX:765-494 0517

web http://www.cyto.purdue.edu

________________________________________

• Next message: Leary, James: "RE: Labeling cells with beads"

• Previous message: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• In reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Echeagaray, Patricia L.: "RE: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

Re: List reply-to setting.

From: Steve G. Hilliard (steve@habanero.cb.uga.edu)

Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 15:16:14 EST

• Next message: J. Paul Robinson: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Previous message: Mark A. Corio: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• In reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Mike Clark: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Reply: Mike Clark: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

RE: replies going to the list instead of the sender, I would be in favor

of it, but these kinds of changes need to be explained quite frequently

before they have the desired effect.  Another thing I would like to have

considered (sorry Steve!) is if we could change the setup so that bounces

go back to the list administrator, rather than to the poster.  I always

get several bounce messages (people who have left w/o unsubbing, or don't

read their mail frequently enough...) whenever I post a message to the

list, but it doesn't do any good, because I can't remove those people from

the list--only Steve can.  My wife administers 2 lists, and she has the

bounces come back to her, since she is the only one who can remove

subscribers who are no longer valid.

Just a suggestion, and one that would ultimately make more work for Steve.

When it comes down to it I think the final say should be his, because he's

doing us a great service by operating this list, and I think

he should be allowed to determine how he does his "job".  I have other

suggestions, but I wouldn't presume to bring them up w/o supplying him w/

a large volume of beer.....

Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------

Steve G. Hilliard        steve@habanero.cb.uga.edu        

If you're a runner you should be dead.

http://storm.cadcam.iupui.edu/drs/drs.html

---------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________

• Next message: J. Paul Robinson: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Previous message: Mark A. Corio: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• In reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Mike Clark: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Reply: Mike Clark: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

Re: List reply-to setting.

From: Mark A. Corio (rmi@frontiernet.net)

Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 16:11:16 EST

• Next message: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Previous message: Andy Riddell: "Re: high speed sorters"

• Maybe in reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

Steve,

I agree with you that Steve (the list administrator) is doing us all a

great service and that the decision should be his. I have received several

messages from people who strongly disagree with me about the reply-to ( and

several that agree). Those that disagree and want the list reply-to to

remain to the original sender appear to be concerned about wasting their

time with unsolicited mail. I can't disagree, although I don't share that

fear. My original point was intended to further my understanding about

topic areas where I have no experience. By monitoring the responses to

questions one can learn much. To gain similar understanding in the current

format, I would have to send a note to all original posters asking them to

forward to me all the responses they get (or I could go read a book on the

subject, I suppose).

I intended not to offend anyone or to threaten the existing system. Mine is

only one small voice of many on this list. It was once said that you can't

please anyone all the time or all at any time (something like that). This

did generate a lively discussion, though. Whatever Steve (the

administrator) decides to offer, I will continue to lurk and be happy.

P.S. I was also secretly hoping the bounced message notifications problem

would be corrected by this as you indicate.

Mark A. Corio

Rochester MicroSystems, Inc.

200 Buell Road, Suite 9

Rochester, NY  14624

Tel: (716) 328-5850

Fax: (716) 328-1144

e-mail: rmi@frontiernet.net

http://www.frontiernet.net/~rmi/

****** Designing Electronics for Research and Industry ******

----------

> From: Steve G. Hilliard <steve@habanero.cb.uga.edu>

> To: Mark A. Corio <rmi@frontiernet.net>

> Cc: Cytometry Mailing List <cytometry@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu>

> Subject: Re: List reply-to setting.

> Date: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 3:16 PM

>

> RE: replies going to the list instead of the sender, I would be in favor

> of it, but these kinds of changes need to be explained quite frequently

> before they have the desired effect.  Another thing I would like to have

> considered (sorry Steve!) is if we could change the setup so that bounces

> go back to the list administrator, rather than to the poster.  I always

> get several bounce messages (people who have left w/o unsubbing, or don't

> read their mail frequently enough...) whenever I post a message to the

> list, but it doesn't do any good, because I can't remove those people

from

> the list--only Steve can.  My wife administers 2 lists, and she has the

> bounces come back to her, since she is the only one who can remove

> subscribers who are no longer valid.

>

> Just a suggestion, and one that would ultimately make more work for

Steve.

> When it comes down to it I think the final say should be his, because

he's

> doing us a great service by operating this list, and I think

> he should be allowed to determine how he does his "job".  I have other

> suggestions, but I wouldn't presume to bring them up w/o supplying him w/

> a large volume of beer.....

>

> Steve

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> Steve G. Hilliard        steve@habanero.cb.uga.edu        

> If you're a runner you should be dead.

> http://storm.cadcam.iupui.edu/drs/drs.html

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

________________________________________

• Next message: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Previous message: Andy Riddell: "Re: high speed sorters"

• Maybe in reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

Re: List reply-to setting.

From: Barry Grimes (bagrim1@pop.uky.edu)

Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 22:48:03 EST

• Next message: David Novo: "Re: More ratio questions"

• Previous message: robert ashcroft: "Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute"

• Maybe in reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

It seems the Steves have summed up the situation...status quo survives? I

would vote to continue the current format. Thank you Steve Kelley for

maintaining this informative forum.

Barry

>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:16:14 -0500 (EST)

>From: "Steve G. Hilliard" <steve@habanero.cb.uga.edu>

>To: Cytometry Mailing List <cytometry@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu>

>cc: Cytometry Mailing List <cytometry@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu>

>Subject: Re: List reply-to setting.

>MIME-Version: 1.0

>

>

>RE: replies going to the list instead of the sender, I would be in favor

>of it, but these kinds of changes need to be explained quite frequently

>before they have the desired effect.  Another thing I would like to have

>considered (sorry Steve!) is if we could change the setup so that bounces

>go back to the list administrator, rather than to the poster.  I always

>get several bounce messages (people who have left w/o unsubbing, or don't

>read their mail frequently enough...) whenever I post a message to the

>list, but it doesn't do any good, because I can't remove those people from

>the list--only Steve can.  My wife administers 2 lists, and she has the

>bounces come back to her, since she is the only one who can remove

>subscribers who are no longer valid.

>

>Just a suggestion, and one that would ultimately make more work for Steve.

>When it comes down to it I think the final say should be his, because he's

>doing us a great service by operating this list, and I think

>he should be allowed to determine how he does his "job".  I have other

>suggestions, but I wouldn't presume to bring them up w/o supplying him w/

>a large volume of beer.....

>

>Steve

>---------------------------------------------------------------

>Steve G. Hilliard        steve@habanero.cb.uga.edu

>If you're a runner you should be dead.

>http://storm.cadcam.iupui.edu/drs/drs.html

>---------------------------------------------------------------

>

Barry Grimes

Manager, Hematopoiesis FACS Laboratory

UKMC Hematopoiesis Center

800 Rose St.

Lexington,KY 40536-0093

606-323-8193

bagrim1@pop.uky.edu

________________________________________

• Next message: David Novo: "Re: More ratio questions"

• Previous message: robert ashcroft: "Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute"

• Maybe in reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

Re: List reply-to setting.

From: Mike Clark (mrc7@cam.ac.uk)

Date: Wed Feb 11 1998 - 03:40:59 EST

• Next message: Howard Shapiro: "RE: Ratios and Log Data"

• Previous message: Janet E. Lewis: "Re: FACS Convert"

• In reply to: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: J. Paul Robinson: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

On Tue 10 Feb, Steve G. Hilliard wrote:

>

> RE: replies going to the list instead of the sender, I would be in favor

> of it, but these kinds of changes need to be explained quite frequently

> before they have the desired effect.  Another thing I would like to have

> considered (sorry Steve!) is if we could change the setup so that bounces

> go back to the list administrator, rather than to the poster.  I always

> get several bounce messages (people who have left w/o unsubbing, or don't

> read their mail frequently enough...) whenever I post a message to the

> list, but it doesn't do any good, because I can't remove those people from

> the list--only Steve can.  My wife administers 2 lists, and she has the

> bounces come back to her, since she is the only one who can remove

> subscribers who are no longer valid.

I would support this second point. It is usually common practice for the list

administrator to handle errors as they are the only ones who can remove a

name from the list if it is a persistent problem.

[snip]

Mike Clark,              

The antibody structure and function website is at

<URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/mikeimages.html>

--

o/ \\    //            ||  ,_ o   M.R. Clark, PhD. Division of Immunology

<\__,\\  //   __o       || /  /\,  Cambridge University, Dept. Pathology

">    ||   _`\<,_    //  \\ \> |  Tennis Court Rd., Cambridge CB2 1QP

 `    ||  (_)/ (_)  //    \\ \_   Tel.+44 1223 333705  Fax.+44 1223 333875

________________________________________

• Next message: Howard Shapiro: "RE: Ratios and Log Data"

• Previous message: Janet E. Lewis: "Re: FACS Convert"

• In reply to: Steve G. Hilliard: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: J. Paul Robinson: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

Re: List reply-to setting.

From: N.W. BLACKHALL (PLZNB@pln1.life.nottingham.ac.uk)

Date: Wed Feb 11 1998 - 07:00:20 EST

• Next message: robert ashcroft: "Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute"

• Previous message: Echeagaray, Patricia L.: "RE: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe in reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Barry Grimes: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

Dear all

It is my (humble) opinion that the current reply to setting is OK.

Surely it is up to the discretion of the person relying to decide

whether the response should go to the whole list or simply to the

sender.  This allows the senders to route more trivial/less

interesting material directly to the intended recipients and not to

everyone.

The software we use at Nottingham, Pegasus Mail v2.10, 1995, gives

one the oportunity of replying to the 'sender', 'to', 'cc', reply to'

or 'from' fields.

Regards,

Nigel Blackhall,

Experimental Officer, Plant Science Division,

School of Biology, University of Nottingham,

University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK

Tel +44 115 9515151 ext 8501

Fax +44 115 9513240

________________________________________

• Next message: robert ashcroft: "Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute"

• Previous message: Echeagaray, Patricia L.: "RE: List reply-to setting."

• Maybe in reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: Barry Grimes: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

RE: List reply-to setting.

From: Echeagaray, Patricia L. (echeagaray@sri.org)

Date: Wed Feb 11 1998 - 08:27:17 EST

• Next message: N.W. BLACKHALL: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Previous message: Howard Shapiro: "RE: Ratios and Log Data"

• Maybe in reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: N.W. BLACKHALL: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

Hi Mark,

Actually, on my Netscape 3.01, I have a choice of sending to the auther

(as in you in reference to the note below) or to the entire list (such

as the NG and to you) perhaps you are using a version that doesn't give

you those choices, or you are "clicking" on the less correct one?

<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>

Patricia L. Echeagaray;  echeagaray@sri.org

Flow Cytometry Services

Southern Research - Frederick

431 Aviation Way     Frederick, Maryland 21701

USA

Voice: (301) 228-2170

  FAX: (301) 694-7223

echeagaray@sri.org

<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>:<+>

>----------

>From: Mark A. Corio[SMTP:rmi@frontiernet.net]

>Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 5:18 PM

>To: Cytometry Mailing List

>Subject: List reply-to setting.

>

>

>Steve,

>Belonging to several lists, I found something unusual when I joined this

>list....the reply-to setting is to the original author instead of the list.

> Several others mentioned it recently and I wonder if the list would like

>to have the reply-to set to the list so that more responses appear on-line

>instead of personal conversations. The list traffic goes up a little, but

>the responses are often more valuable with information than the original

>posts. Anyone else feel this would be a good idea? Is there a reason it is

>the way it is, Steve, that we shouldn't change it?

>

>Mark A. Corio

>Rochester MicroSystems, Inc.

>200 Buell Road, Suite 9

>Rochester, NY  14624

>Tel: (716) 328-5850

>Fax: (716) 328-1144

>e-mail: rmi@frontiernet.net

>http://www.frontiernet.net/~rmi/

>****** Designing Electronics for Research and Industry ******

>

________________________________________

• Next message: N.W. BLACKHALL: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Previous message: Howard Shapiro: "RE: Ratios and Log Data"

• Maybe in reply to: Mark A. Corio: "List reply-to setting."

• Next in thread: N.W. BLACKHALL: "Re: List reply-to setting."

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

List mechanics - replies and bounces

From: Steve Kelley (SKELLEY@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu)

Date: Wed Feb 11 1998 - 10:13:03 EST

• Next message: Gerhard Nebe-von-Caron: "Re: Labeling cells with beads"

• Previous message: Andy Riddell: "Re: high speed sorters"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

In principle, the bounce messages should only come to me.

There are headers in the mail messages that *should* be

honored by the software that receives the mail on the other end,

that would restrict error notification to me as the actual sender,

rather than the original author.

Unfortunately, the 'state of the art' in E-Mail software is

absolutely abysmal, from top to bottom, first to last, simple

to complex.  It pretty much all stinks, because it pretty much

all assumes that the users want to use their email exactly the

same way the author of the software does.

Some clients honor the error headers, some don't.  Some handle

attachments well, some don't.  Some handle word wrap automatically at

the reader, some try to impose wrapping at an intermediate stage, some

ignore it totally.

The fundamental transport agents, the programs that get the

mail from computer to computer, are a little better, but the main

program used by most system administrators was designed back in

the late 60s and has been incrementally (perhaps accretionally is a

better term) 'improved' since then.

And that, I think, is the main problem with E-Mail software in

general.  It is accreted, rather than designed, and unless all the

various authors of all the various clients start thinking similarly,

we will continue to have problems.

Now the specifics.

The bounce problem occurs because the original author's address is

in one of the headers of the message.  The *only* way to completely

solve the bounce problem, is to completely remove the author's address

from all of the standard headers.  This would make it *impossible* for

any client to ever 'reply' to an individual - the reader would have

to make a conscious decision to restrict his or her reply, then

either type or cut-and-paste the author's address (an error-prone

operation).  For various reasons, we have decided to keep the

author's address in a standard header,  therefore, some software will

continue to send a copy of bounce messages to the author as well as

to me.

What I will do, is to be much more aggressive over the next few weeks

in weeding out addresses that fail.  I have been very hesitant about

pruning the address list, since many 'failures' are due to temporary

conditions.  I will try to be careful about which addresses get

removed, but if you find yourself not receiving cytometry mail

suddenly, please let me know.

Steve

Steve Kelley            kelley@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu

Purdue University Cytometry Laboratories    (765) 494-0757  -- voice

B050 Hansen LSRB, Purdue University         (765) 494-0517  -- fax

West Lafayette, Indiana, 47907

________________________________________

• Next message: Gerhard Nebe-von-Caron: "Re: Labeling cells with beads"

• Previous message: Andy Riddell: "Re: high speed sorters"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

List mechanics

From: Steve Kelley (SKELLEY@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu)

Date: Wed Feb 11 1998 - 10:18:46 EST

• Next message: Mara Rocchi: "Dynal beads - thanks"

• Previous message: Ray Hicks: "Re: More ratio questions"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

I've sent another message with a long explanation, but I'd like

to emphasize here that I will be very aggressive over the next

few weeks in removing addresses from the Cytometry Mailing List

that generate bounce messages.

If you suddenly stop receiving Cytometry Mail, please let me know

at

   cyto-request@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu

In addition, if you receive error messages in response to your

message to the list, please send me a copy to

   bounces@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu

Thank you all for your participation.  I have received many comments

that our list is one of the most professionally useful in existence,

and that is entirely due to the exceptionally high quality of the

discussions that utilize it.

Steve

Steve Kelley            kelley@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu

Purdue University Cytometry Laboratories    (765) 494-0757  -- voice

B050 Hansen LSRB, Purdue University         (765) 494-0517  -- fax

West Lafayette, Indiana, 47907

________________________________________

• Next message: Mara Rocchi: "Dynal beads - thanks"

• Previous message: Ray Hicks: "Re: More ratio questions"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:13 EST

November 30, 2008 8:49 PM
 

flowcytometry said:

Re: Wich differences between Cell Quest and Flow Jo?

From: Adrian Smith (A.Smith@centenary.usyd.edu.AU)

Date: Mon Mar 04 2002 - 19:52:55 EST

• Next message: Van Bockstaele, Dirk: "RE: Bascteria sorting ?"

• Previous message: Nigel Blackhall: "Re: plant protoplast sorting"

• In reply to: Simona Ronzoni: "Wich differences between Cell Quest and Flow Jo?"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

>Dear Flowers,

>I always work with Cell Quest but now I downloaded Flow Jo program

>and I have a problem.

>I don't know where is the option for create  the union of two gates (

>In Cell Quest   is R1 or R2)

>Then I would to know wich are the substantial differences between

>Cell Quest and Flow Jo

>Thanks in advance

>Ciao

>Simona

FlowJo uses a hierarchical rather than a logical gate structure, ie

you don't work by creating two gates and then combining them, rather

you place the first gate, open the gated plot and place the second

gate directly on that plot.

The best way to get into FlowJo is to do the tutorial that can be

downloaded from the web-site (<http://www.flowjo.com/tutorial.html>).

Until you have got your head around the fundamental differences

between the programs it is very hard to compare them.

Adrian

________________________________________

• Next message: Van Bockstaele, Dirk: "RE: Bascteria sorting ?"

• Previous message: Nigel Blackhall: "Re: plant protoplast sorting"

• In reply to: Simona Ronzoni: "Wich differences between Cell Quest and Flow Jo?"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:41:27 EST

FlowJo Analysis Seminar

From: Martha Kirby (mkirby@nhgri.nih.gov)

Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 15:51:42 EST

• Next message: Voorn, J.: "conclusions to the ELISPOT interest inventory"

• Previous message: Kurtz, James: "[7AAD viability for CD34]"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

To Flow Cytometry Group,

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that Jennifer Wilshire from Tree

Star, Inc. will be giving a FlowJo Software Demonstration this

Thursday, April 11 at 1:00 PM in  the 4th Floor Conference Room (room

4A46), Bldg. 49, NIH, NHGRI.  This Flow Cytometry Analysis Seminar is

open to all interested.

Thanks,

Martha

Disclaimer of Endorsement: Reference herein to any specific

commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark,

manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply

its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States

Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not

necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government,

and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

--

Martha Kirby

NIH, NHGRI, GMBB

Bldg. 10, Rm. 2C19

9000 Rockville Pike

Bethesda, MD 20892

301 402-2264

mkirby@NHGRI.NIH.GOV

________________________________________

• Next message: Voorn, J.: "conclusions to the ELISPOT interest inventory"

• Previous message: Kurtz, James: "[7AAD viability for CD34]"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:41:36 EST

FlowJo Announcements

From: Adam Treister (adam@treestar.com)

Date: Mon Apr 22 2002 - 00:15:07 EST

• Next message: b cotleur: "2-me in culture media:summary"

• Previous message: Geert Raes: "Re: b-mercaptoethanol in media"

• Next in thread: Mario Roederer: "Job Opening -- Immediate -- Vaccine Research Center"

• Reply: Mario Roederer: "Job Opening -- Immediate -- Vaccine Research Center"

• Reply: Michael Dustin : "MoFlo vs Vantage"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

Only two more weeks until ISAC, that biennial bacchanalia of flower power

and fun!  So I hope you'll excuse a bunch of blatantly commercial

announcements to the list, but endulge me this one time and read on.

At the show we'll be releasing FlowJo Version 4.  We've got new platforms

for overlaying and clustering, we've made it work better across the

Internet, added all sorts of new conveniences, and spiffed it up with the

new OS X look and feel.  What was already the best analysis software in flow

cytometry has gotten a whole lot better.

At the meeting, Tree Star is proud to be sponsoring the CyberCafe, your link

to home and responsibility while you're in carefree San Diego.  Check your

email, surf the web, download the slides you'll be presenting at ten.   A

cadre of California companies has contributed to bring in a premier local

roaster to satisfy all your latte urges.  We hope you’ll all drop by and see

what we mean when we say we're committed to Java.   The network is going

wireless this year.  Just pop a 802.11 card in your laptop, and while your

neighbor plays solitaire through the keynote, you can be reading e-mail.

We're going to open the CyberCafe with the Second Biennial FlowJo Users

Group Meeting,. Saturday night May 4 at 8PM.   The first user group meeting

was cancelled for lack of interest when Dave Novo brought in a case and a

half of French wine, so this year we're going to try real hard to assemble

to the point where we can see the show of hands on something before we

disband in search of alcohol.  We'll have a whole bunch of Macs running

FlowJo v4 under OS X, and you can bring your own data and get into big

arguments about compensation.   Be the first to get the newest FlowJo

t-shirt.

All you Windows fans out there, come by our booth to see FlowJo running on a

PC!  We’ll be previewing the long awaited Java version of FlowJo.  We’re

still not ready to release it, but we’ll be giving a peak as to what it is

going to do.

For those who haven't found it yet, we've unveiled a spanking new FlowJo

website. Flowjo.com is chuck full of new content, functionality and spunk.

Automated price quotes, online ordering, a FAQ that will guide you to new

depths of understanding, and none of that awful yellow on black text.  The

search engine even works.  No ads & cookie-free.  Check it out.

Specifically, you should check our pricing. Prices are going up on May 10.

It has been a number of years since we've changed our prices and with the

development of the OSX and PC versions,  it¹s time for a leap.  I guess

there's no such thing as a free launch.  Anyway, this may be a great time to

buy that FlowJo ten pack you've been thinking about.  Licenses purchased

before May 10 are entitled to a year of free upgrades, including the 4.0

release.

Unleash the flower power!

Adam

------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam Treister

Tree Star, Inc.

ph: 800-366-6045 intl: 1-650-591-2854 fax: 1-650-508-9186

adam@treestar.com    www.treestar.com

------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________

• Next message: b cotleur: "2-me in culture media:summary"

• Previous message: Geert Raes: "Re: b-mercaptoethanol in media"

• Next in thread: Mario Roederer: "Job Opening -- Immediate -- Vaccine Research Center"

• Reply: Mario Roederer: "Job Opening -- Immediate -- Vaccine Research Center"

• Reply: Michael Dustin : "MoFlo vs Vantage"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:41:39 EST

RE: Report from ISAC Meeting San Diego

From: Adam Treister (adam@treestar.com)

Date: Wed May 22 2002 - 01:45:52 EST

• Next message: Susan DeMaggio: "Re: Core Manager's Workshop"

• Previous message: Simon Watson: "Computer Networks"

• Maybe in reply to: J.Paul Robinson: "Report from ISAC Meeting San Diego"

• Next in thread: Adrian Smith: "Biotinylation reagents"

• Reply: Adrian Smith: "Biotinylation reagents"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

> From: J.Paul Robinson

[mailto:jpr@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu]

> Subject: Report from ISAC Meeting San Diego

> Colleagues:

> Hello from sunny California and the ISAC XXI congress. This message comes

to you

> from the CYBER CAFE generously provided by Adam Triester of Tree Star, Inc

of FLOJO land!

> Adam has made a bank of 12 computers, a wireless network and, lots of

network cables for

>  laptops. He has a T1 fast line and is providing FREE access for the

entire congress.

> The room is ALWAYS full and is definitley the most popular place in the

congress.

> It has nothing to do with the outstanding FREE coffee from Ryan Bros,

Coffee again

> generously provided by Adam. This is the best facility

provided by any vendor ever!.....

> so long live FLOJO.....and more free coffee and internet access....

Paul,

Thanks for the kind words, but I can't take all the credit for the

CyberCafe.

Apple generously provided all the Macs.  IT departments around the world may

say that Macs are hard to network, but we put a dozen Macs on the Internet

in under an hour.   Apple sent top of the line G4s with Cinema displays, and

Titanium PowerBooks, as well as a bunch of iMacs.  Imagine what the lines

would have been like if we only had three computers, as we did in

Montpelier.

The true highlight of the cafe was the free espresso. Thanks to Phoenix Flow

Systems, Guava Technologies, PROzyme and Becton Dickinson for contributing

to the coffee fund. By the time we got to the coffee I had blown the

marketing budget on this endeavor, and these companies stepped in to make

sure you had Ryan Brothers coffee instead of the swill we'd have gotten from

the hotel.  I also extend a special thanks to Kevin Becker for bringing the

Mar Dels to the banquet.  The best band of any ISAC I've attended.

The CyberCafe crew was Jennifer Wilshire, Maciej Simm, Adam Treat and Amy

Hsu. They thought they were getting a leisurely week on the beach, and ended

up working 9 to 9 every day to keep the CyberCafe running.  It was an

exhausting schedule, and they were tireless in their support of the

attendees' Internet needs.  It never would have come off without them.

Sophia Ascani and Alexandra Treister tie-dyed the 350 shirts.  Each one is a

unique work of art, and each was hand-dipped.  Our garage floor has the

stains to prove it.  So wear them proud, and wash them in cold water.

We've agreed to do it again at ISAC XXII in Montpelier.  

I'm just thankful

this congress is only held every second year.  

All this marketing crap

Just gets in the way of my programming.

Au revoir,

Adam

------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam Treister

Tree Star, Inc.

ph: 800-366-6045 intl: 1-650-591-2854 fax: 1-650-508-9186

adam@treestar.com    www.flowjo.com

------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________

• Next message: Susan DeMaggio: "Re: Core Manager's Workshop"

• Previous message: Simon Watson: "Computer Networks"

• Maybe in reply to: J.Paul Robinson: "Report from ISAC Meeting San Diego"

• Next in thread: Adrian Smith: "Biotinylation reagents"

• Reply: Adrian Smith: "Biotinylation reagents"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:41:43 EST

RE: Descriptive statistics

From: Adam Treister (adam@treestar.com)

Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 13:11:14 EST

• Next message: ba cotleur: "ANSWER TO EXPORT RAW DATA"

• Previous message: deborah foss: "CFDA-SE staining"

• In reply to: Jan Bayer: "Re: Descriptive statistics"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

>  Jan Bayer wrote:

> I think you should consider reading the probability binning papers,

> published sep 2001 (vol 45) in cytometry.

>

>

The important extension is that the probability binning methods include

multivariate

comparisons.

Your points are valid improvements over the well known limitations of the KS

algorithm, but they still look at only one dimension of the data.  This was

exactly how we started when we set out to add comparison statistics to

FlowJo.  But when we realized we should look at all of the data, and

implemented the multivariate comparisons, things worked much better.

Suddenly the software started quantifying the differences in ways that more

closely matched human assessments, and it also became able to gate on the

events that constitute the important differences.

http://www.flowjo.com/v4/html/comparison.html

Adam

------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam Treister

Tree Star, Inc.

ph: 800-366-6045 intl: 1-650-591-2854 fax: 1-650-508-9186

adam@treestar.com    www.flowjo.com

------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________

• Next message: ba cotleur: "ANSWER TO EXPORT RAW DATA"

• Previous message: deborah foss: "CFDA-SE staining"

• In reply to: Jan Bayer: "Re: Descriptive statistics"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:41:45 EST

Re: newbie help with software compensation

From: David Novo (dave@denovosoftware.com)

Date: Fri Jun 14 2002 - 00:24:27 EST

• Next message: Annette Byrne: "Permeabilising Cells"

• Previous message: Michael Herron: "Re: FITC-labelling of bacteria"

• In reply to: Marty Bigos: "Re: newbie help with software compensation"

• Next in thread: Mario Roederer: "Re: newbie help with software compensation"

• Reply: Mario Roederer: "Re: newbie help with software compensation"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

Hi Marty,

Just to reassure you, FCS Express does use the linear model correctly. It may shock you

to learn that other people, aside from your friends at Treestar, can read Dr. Bagwell's

paper and actually understand it enough to implement the algorithms that he describes.

FCS Express allows you to enter the files with the single stained controls and it

calculates the matrix values based upon the data in the file. In addition, in order to

see how slight changes in the compensation can distort your data, you can change the

compensation values with sliders to see what happens. Its a great for teaching people

the difference between proper, over- and under- compensated data. You can also enter

a user defined value to smooth out the digitization errors that can occur in the low

end of lower resolution data.

If anyone finds any problems with the compensation (which hasn't happened yet), please

let me know and of course I will fix any errors. But until that happens, I think that

your assumption that FCS Express uses the linear model correctly is actually a very

good one.

-Dave

At 06:23 PM 6/12/02 -0700, you wrote:

>Lastly, of course, this assumes that Summit (and FCS-Express) do use

>the linear model correctly. In an older version of Summit I used,

>overcompensation resulted in data "bouncing" off the axis instead of

>being smashed down on the axis.

________________________________________

• Next message: Annette Byrne: "Permeabilising Cells"

• Previous message: Michael Herron: "Re: FITC-labelling of bacteria"

• In reply to: Marty Bigos: "Re: newbie help with software compensation"

• Next in thread: Mario Roederer: "Re: newbie help with software compensation"

• Reply: Mario Roederer: "Re: newbie help with software compensation"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:41:48 EST

Advertising

From: Mario Roederer (roederer@drmr.com)

Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 16:46:47 EST

• Next message: William Telford: "Re: Fluorochromes choice"

• Previous message: Derek Davies: "RE: Fluorochromes choice"

• Next in thread: Penney Robbins: "RE: Advertising"

• Maybe reply: Penney Robbins: "RE: Advertising"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

I agree that there have been far too many commercial-oriented emails

on the list.  I appreciate the efforts of most manufacturers to

withhold from advertising on this list (plus, of course, the efforts

of Steve & Paul to filter those out).

The list, which is an outstanding forum for exchange of information,

has been occasionally used to identify substantially new products

which can significantly impact on how we do experiments.  I feel that

the Molecular Probes email of 10/30 clearly does not fall into this

category; the new product advertised was no more than a slight

modification of the existing one.  Such an email should be directed

solely to the person requesting information; if that person then

collates responses and puts it back on the list then so be it.  But

for manufacturers to directly respond in this way is

counter-productive to the goals of this list.

I would like to propose a 6-month moratorium on all emails that are

no more than advertisements.  Note that I write "would like

to"--because I'm not sure that this is possible.  I don't want to put

any additional onus on Steve or Paul to filter out the borderline

emails.  While these may be easy to identify when they come from

manufacturers, it could just as well be considered blatant

advertising when they come from a user.

Therefore, perhaps we can see if the commercial participants on this

list could exercise self-restraint rather than requesting a formal

censorship of advertising emails.

Thus, if you are a manufacturer, and you are responding to somebody's

request for information, do so privately to that person ONLY.  It is

up to the person requesting information to decide whether or not the

information received in response to the query warrants a summary on

the list.

If you are not a manufacturer, and are responding to somebody's

request for specific information, please consider whether your

response (that identifies a specific product or manufacturer) is of

general enough interest to warrant the list.  If it does not, then

simply send it privately to the person who requested information, and

let them decide whether to post the summary of responses.

In general, I urge people to err on the side of caution and send

their information only to the person who requested it.  Realize that

if several people want the same information, they can always request

it from the original poster!  I have posted queries to the list;

people have sent me emails asking me to forward to them the

responses, which I did.

This process can significantly cut down on emails that might be

viewed as too commercial.

mr

________________________________________

• Next message: William Telford: "Re: Fluorochromes choice"

• Previous message: Derek Davies: "RE: Fluorochromes choice"

• Next in thread: Penney Robbins: "RE: Advertising"

• Maybe reply: Penney Robbins: "RE: Advertising"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:42:08 EST

advertizing - no need to comment on this please.

From: J.Paul Robinson (jpr@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu)

Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 17:43:44 EST

• Next message: Mike Wade: "Rat p53 antibody"

• Previous message: cy: "CD34"

• In reply to: Enoc_Hollemweguer@BD.com: "Re: looking for CCR7"

• Next in thread: Donnenberg, Albert: "RE: looking for CCR7"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

>From the list-owner:

Please don't start another "he said, she said" on advertizing. I don't want to

have to spend half my day negotiating squabbles between intelligent people

(and scientists)

Lets keep it down to a dull roar. This is a discussion group whose intentions

are to facilitate information exchange and knowledge .

OK that's enough. I hope there will not be a host of comments on this.  Get

back to the science.....

thanks

Paul Robinson

Purdue University

J.Paul Robinson, PhD             PH:(765)4940757

Professor of Immunopharmacology

Professor of Biomedical Engineering

Purdue University          FAX:(765)4940517

EMAIL:jpr@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu

WEB: http://www.cyto.purdue.edu

________________________________________

• Next message: Mike Wade: "Rat p53 antibody"

• Previous message: cy: "CD34"

• In reply to: Enoc_Hollemweguer@BD.com: "Re: looking for CCR7"

• Next in thread: Donnenberg, Albert: "RE: looking for CCR7"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:42:08 EST

RE: Advertising

From: Penney Robbins (parneogen@excite.com)

Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 15:44:10 EST

• Next message: Richard Haugland: "Re: Fluorochromes choice"

• Previous message: Beavis, Andrew: "Positions Available at Esoterix Inc, New Jersey"

• Maybe in reply to: Mario Roederer: "Advertising"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

________________________________________

Well, I disagree. There aren't that many commerical e-mails, and for us, an isolated

startup company, separated from academic institutions, one of the commerical e-mails

was helpful, we would not have know about the product otherwise (see I am even not

going to advertise it!).

All best,

Penney Robbins, PhD.

--- On Fri 11/01, Mario Roederer  wrote:

From: M