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
