HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:43:36 EST
From:         "David S. Crawford. Health Sciences Library,
              McGill" <MI66@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject:      Moderating MEDLIB-L
X-To:         MEDLIB-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu

>  Though I get swamped with "junk" mail I accept that "one man's
pearl is another man's swine".  If the subjects were clearer one
could tell better what the content was and not even look.  I must
say I NEVER look at mail with no subject but have found I have deleted
a message I thought uninteresting or unimportant to be asked by a
colleague,  "did you see that fascinting message on MEDLIB-L?"
Since I would not volunteer to be a moderator myself I can hardly
expect others to volunteer and if all the moderator is to do is to
remove the "SUBSCRIBE" and "UNSUBSCRIBE" messages it seems hardly
worth the effort and thetrouble.  Perhaps we should all try to be bette
list users.

Thanks Nancy,  the List is usually excellent and we appreciate your
efforts.

DAVID CRAWFORD
McGill University,  Health Sciences Library
> *****************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:48:02 CDT
From:         "A.J. Wright" <MEDS002@UABDPO.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Moderating MEDLIB-L

Let me put in my 2 cents worth on this moderating business; after two years
or so of navigating through dozens of lists and thousands and thousands of
of messages on the nets, I have reached some conclusions I would like to offer.

The idea that the noise level has gotten too high on this list is absurd. This
list is downright inactive most of the time, compared to many, such as WORDS-L
@UGA, which posts a minimum of 100 messages PER DAY and is frequently locked
because traffic is so high. None of the library lists with which I am familiar
(and I have been on most of them at one time or another) can really be called
busy.

Now, on to moderation. I have found that moderated lists are great for those
who only want to lurk and take the pearls of wisdom as they roll in, but they
really do stifle spontenaity (sp?) and the give and take that makes the best
lists so lively. I would hate to see that disappear on this list, which has
consistently been one of the best of the library lists. One of the things I
have noticed about the library lists is how dull and humorless they are most
of the time--none of the breast-beating and eye-gouging that goes on inside
lists in other subject areas. Sure, that has its down side---frivolous, ob-
noxious postings, etc. But it keeps the email reader awake. The library lists
too often mirror the library literature-terminally dull. Not true with some
of the lists in other disciplines. Enough rambling, I'm outta here...

A.J. Wright
Department of Anesthesiology Library
University of Alabama at Birmingham
meds002@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"MEDLIB-L@UBVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:43:00 MDT
From:         ELOVE@UNMB.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Moderating MEDLIB-L

The "nuisance" value is low enough considering the
flow of information that I propose we do not burden
Nancy any more than we have to. It is a labot
LABOR of love, let's leave it as is and say THANKS
to Nancy for a great job!!! E Love UNM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MEDLIB-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MEDLIB-L@UBVM.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: TOMFLEM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:06:00 EDT
From:         "Tom Flemming,
              McMaster Health Sciences Library" <TOMFLEM@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Moderating MEDLIB-L

I vote for keeping things the way they are.  There isn't so much noise
and garbage on this list that it is a problem for me, and I like the
"free-wheeling" nature of what gets distributed.  I don't think we
should ask an editor to assume responsibility for what is distributed;
that should remain the responsibility of those who send their comments
to the list.  If Nancy were editing what we see, people would still
complain about things (you can please some of the people, some of
the time ...) but then *she* would have to bear the complaints as
editor, rather than the person who sends what someone doesn't like to
the list.

I'm for the "status quo" in this instance!

.........................................................................
Tom Flemming                    Bitnet: tomflem@mcmaster
Head of Public Services         Internet: tomflem@sscvax.mcmaster.ca
Health Sciences Library         Envoy 100: mac.lib.hsl
McMaster University
1200 Main Street West           (416) 525-9140   x2321
Hamilton, Ontario
Canada   L8N 3Z5

.........................................................................
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:48:45 EST
From:         MDWS000 <MDWS%RUSHVM.bitnet@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Subject:      Contents of the List?

As a Medical Librarian I must second Steve Murden's comment regarding
MEDLIB-L. I often question the relative calue of being on this list
due to amount of time spent screening messages.

Minna Sellers
Library of Rush University
Chicago, IL
MDWS@RUSHVM.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: medlib-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
X-VMS-To: NET%"medlib-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:38:00 EDT
From:         SMURDEN@RUBY.VCU.EDU
Subject:      Page nos. on bound vol. spines
X-To:         medlib-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu

We have recently had a suggestion from a patron of our medical library that we
begin printing the page ranges on the spines of bound serial volumes, where
the volume is split between more than one physical unit.  We certainly see
the advantages to the patrons, but are wondering about the disadvantages or
complications that it will create for the staff.  I thought that perhaps some
other medical libraries would be willing to share their experiences.

I am specifically looking for the following information:
--Is this something that currently do.
--                     you
--How many bindable current periodical titles do you have?
--How many (or what percentage) of those require this additional information?
--How many staff are involved in the various processes (checking-in, pulling
  for the bindery, processing bindery items)?  And are those responsibilities
  split among different administrative units?
--How would you recommend initiating such a process  (for example, recognizing
  and designating the titles involved)?
--If you do not do this, can you tell me why?
--Are there advantages (other than the obvious convenience for the patron with
  a page number citation) or disadvantages that we should know about before
  beginning?

Any responses will be gratefully appreciated.  If I receive enough data, I will
gladly summarize for the list.  Thank you.

Steve Murden
Virginia Commonwealth University (which includes the Medical College of Va.)
smurden@vcuvax.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Message-Version: 2
>To: MEDLIB-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu
Ua-Content-Id: <PMX-PC-2.0-004659-ohsu3b2-odonovan-5849>
Email-Version: 2
Ua-Message-Id: <MAC-1.3.3-302119-odonovan-886>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 549
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:44:16 -0400
From:         "Patrice O'Donovan" <odonovan@OHSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: An adequate collection
X-To:         MEDLIB-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu

------------ Original Message -------------
Please add my name as an interested party in ANYTHING that might come out of
your investigations into appropriate collection levels.

Penny Welbourne
Falk Library of the Health Sciences
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
paw23@pittvms
--------- End of Original Message ---------

Please also add my name to your list of interested parties in the results of
your investigations into appropriate collection levels.

Patrice O'Donovan
Oregon Health Sciences Univ. Lib
Portland, Oregon
odonovan@ohsu.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:19:00 CDT
From:         AKERR@UOFMCC.BITNET
Subject:      Contents of the List?

Although I do find, at times, that the number of messages is very
high, I find it fairly quick to scan and delete those in which I
have no interest.  The pearls are numerous enough to make it well
worth my while.

In fairness, I would draw your attention to the fact that Nancy Start
does 'speak' to those who are using the list for things not suitable
such as requests for medical information.  I believe it is a lot of
work to carry such responsibility and I thank her for trying to keep
list members on the subject!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MEDLIB-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MEDLIB-L@UBVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 09:23:00 MST
From:         Marilyn McCarthy <MCCARTH@ARIZVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Page nos. on bound vol. spines

WE HAVE HAD REQUESTS FOR THIS BUT DECIDED AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF THE COST
AND IT WAS CONSIDERED FOR ONLY A FEW SELECT TITLES LIKE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL
CHEMISTRY WHICH HAS MANY, MANY PARTS TO ONE VOLUME.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: medlib-l@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: MEDLIB, JOAN, HQ
X-VMS-Cc: SLBG
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 11:28:00 EDT
From:         SLBG@UORDBV.BITNET
Subject:      MLA Dues Structure Proposal
X-To:         medlib-l@UBVM.BITNET, joanz@equinox.unr.EDU,
              jpawliko@life.jsc.nasa.GOV

To:    MEDLIB-L subscribers
From:  Julie Sollenberger
       MLA Board of Directors Liaison to the MLA Membership
       Committee and Chair, MLA Chapter Council
Re:    Draft MLA Dues Structure Proposal
Date:  4/13/92


At the direction of the Board of Directors, the MLA Membership
Committee has drafted a dues structure proposal to be presented to
members and nonmembers for discussion and comment.  This draft
proposal was developed after 1 1/2 years of gathering data and
opinions from MLA members.

After receiving and considering comments on this draft, the
Membership Committee will incorporate suggestions into a revision of
the dues structure and present it to the MLA Board for approval at
its midwinter meeting in December 1992.  Members will vote on the
final proposal at the 1993 annual meeting. Members will also vote on
bylaws changes needed to implement the new dues structure in the
summer of 1993.

The draft proposal is presented in an article in the April MLA
News.  A copy can also be obtained by contacting MLA headquarters
via mail, phone, fax, or e-mail:

Medical Library Association
Suite 300, Six N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312/419-9094
FAX: 312/419-8950
E-mail:  INTERNET: JPAWLIKO@LIFE.JSC.NASA.GOV

Comments on the draft proposal can be sent to either of the co-
chairs of the MLA Membership Committee:
Gail Yokote      ecz5gay@oac.ucla.edu             or
Rosanne Labree   libmcl@harvarda.harvard.edu

The Membership Committee and Board look forward to your comments and
suggestions regarding the proposed structure.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 09:29:09 CDT
From:         PF Anderson <pfa@CASBAH.ACNS.NWU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Moderating MEDLIB-L
X-To:         MEDLIB-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu
              Apr 13, 92 11:42 am

I currently belong to a few lists which are moderated and a few which
are not. Personally, I vastly prefer the latter, mistakes and all.
The moderated lists I belong to seem to edit or condense or
or merge messages. This has become a problem for me from
time to time, especially the merged messages. If I want to
save one for future reference, I have to save *all* of them
or else do substantial editing. This can be frustrating.

P. F. Anderson
Barnes Learning Resources Center
Galter Library
Northwestern University
pfa@nwu.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: NYU Medical Center, 550 First Ave., New York
X-Envelope-to: MEDLIB-L@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
X-VMS-To: medlib-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 11:27:00 EST
From:         WRYNN@MCCLB0.MED.NYU.EDU
Subject:      Pagination on split volumes
X-To:         MEDLIB-L@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

At NYU Medical Center, pagination is always included with split volumes
except, of course, for those journals where each issue begins anew with
page one.

A typical spine would look like this:
       23
      PT.2
     OCT-DEC
      1991
    PP.850-1124
      INDEX
    & SUPPLS. 1-2

The designation of parts is assigned by the library and makes control of the
binding process easier.  The inclusion of pagination rarely creates problems
(only with journals or supplements that have creative pagination) and we handle
those on a case by case basis.

We include pagination in our item records in our OPAC (we use the Innovative
system).  The item record for the above volume would read as follows:

v. 23 p. 850-1124 + suppls. 1-2 1991

This record displays to patrons.

We subscribe to 1800 journals, and bind about 3,000 volumes per year.  I would
guess that more than half are split volumes.

Paul Wrynn
NYU Medical Center
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:13:27 EDT
From:         "Gywnneth Heaton" <HEATON@VM.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject:      List of Libraries with Comp Based Learning Res Centers

I want to thank each and every one for sending me your information.  I have
not included libraries who do not in fact have the resource centre in your
library or who do not administer it.  My apologies if I have not transcribed
everything accurately.  In some cases two people in the same organization
responded and I took the best from each.

I hope to send this file to you with my next message.

GWYNNETH HEATON, HEAD, SCIENCE AND MEDICINE LIBRARY
7 KING'S COLLEGE CIRCLE, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
TORONTO, ONTARIO CANADA M5S 1A5  INTERNET:HEATON@VM.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA
PHONE:  416-978-7662
.....................................................................
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <LLTHOMP@GWUVM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 10:19:24 EDT
From:         Laurie Thompson <LLTHOMP@GWUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Online Journal of Current C
              17 Apr 1992 09:28:49 EST from <Mark_Funk@QMCUMC.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU>

According to a presentation by representatives from AAAS here at GW
a couple of weeks ago, the delay in publication of Online Journal of
Current Clinical Trials is due to lack of submissions.

Laurie Thompson  /  Geo Washington Univ  /  llthomp@gwuvm
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MEDLIB-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: BINKLY::IN%"MEDLIB-L@UBVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:43:00 EST
From:         BOILARD%CUTTER@MCOIARC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: an adequate collection

There are some old (old) papers on analyzing the collection.  As I
remember it, the assumption is that NLM purchases just about everything
in the hard core biomedicine field and therefore closely reflects
English language publishing.

Your library collection, at least in the biomedical fields, should
reflect a percent of NLM's collecting -- proportionate to your
respective budgets.  If your budget is 10% of NLM's, and they purchased
300 books on pediatric nephrology, you should have purchased 30.

An analysis can be performed on the retrospective collection by
comparing numbers of books you have in each NLM classification with the
number NLM has (CATLLINE used to be good for this, don't know any more).
I don't know what you'd use for current purchasing (CALTLINE?),
but it would work the same way.

Then you'd make modifications based on whether or not you had a program
in pediatric nephrology  to determine purchasing focuses.
Something similar might be done with the non-classified serials.  I do
believe Gary Byrd used this method in the 70's.  You might check with
him about it.

                                       Dave Boilard
                                       Medical College of Ohio
                                       PO Box 10008
                                       Toledo OH 43699-0008
                                       boilard%cutter@mcoiarc.bitnet
                                       (419) 381-4223
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:57:46 EDT
From:         "Gywnneth Heaton" <HEATON@VM.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject:      List did not send properly

I'm very sorry.  This list does not print out properly.  I'll find out
from someone how to send files properly.  Please disregard the List of
Libraries in North America with CBLRC's that I sent you today.  I'll send
another as soon as I find out what I did wrong - another day!.  It's eleven
pages so it had better be able to be printed properly.

GWYNNETH HEATON, HEAD, SCIENCE AND MEDICINE LIBRARY
7 KING'S COLLEGE CIRCLE, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
TORONTO, ONTARIO CANADA M5S 1A5  INTERNET:HEATON@VM.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA
PHONE:  416-978-7662
.....................................................................
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: medlib-l@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: MEDLIB
X-VMS-Cc: SLBG
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 12:13:00 EDT
From:         SLBG@UORDBV.BITNET
Subject:      GPOM removed from BRS

We at the Edward G. Miner Library, University of Rochester, are
dismayed at a recent decision made by BRS to remove the GPO Monthly
Catalog from its "family" of available databases.  BRS tells me that
they are trying to concentrate on offering medical and biomedical
databases, and GPOM does not fit into this area of specialization.
Certainly many other general reference databases on BRS do not "fit"
either --  So are we going to see them all get the axe as well?

We have come to rely on GPOM online and are expressing our
displeasure to BRS.  If any of you would like to do that also,
please write to MARILEE WINIARSKI, MANAGER OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT,
at BRS.  Perhaps they will reconsider.  Thank you.

Julie Sollenberger
Head, Public Services
University of Rochester
School of Medicine and Dentistry
SLBG@DB1.CC.ROCHESTER.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MEDLIB-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MEDLIB-L@UBVM"
X-VMS-Cc: KAISAKI
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:42:00 PDT
From:         "SUSAN A. KAISAKI, HSIC,
              X3751" <KAISAKI%CSMCMVX1.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>
Subject:      Billing/Account software
X-To:         MEDLIB-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu

I had recently read a post regarding account/billing software. I would also be
interested in hearing about what's available in IBM-compatible software.

Thanks!

Susan A. Kaisaki
Health Sciences Information Center
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
P.O. Box 48956
Los Angeles, CA  90048

Voice: 310-855-3751
FAX: 310-967-0138
Bitnet: KAISAKI@CSMCMVAX
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <ahadley@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Sun, 5 Apr 1992 22:08:20 PDT
From:         ahadley@CUP.PORTAL.COM
Subject:      seen new series?
X-To:         MEDLIB-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu

Has anyone seen the new series from PDR called _PDR Journal Abstracts_?  It
sounds like it is the abstracts from the Abridged Index Medicus journals
collected into a book.  $119 for 2 issues a year. Who would want it and why?

Alice E. Hadley
US Naval Hospital, Guam, POBox 20981, GMF, GU 96921 ahadley@cup.portal.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:14:00 EST
From:         "LEIGHTON H. CUMMING" <WB50118@IBRDVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      NOMAIL

          set LIBADMIN nomail
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MEDLIB-L%UBVM.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"MEDLIB-L%UBVM.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu"
X-VMS-Cc: PLUTCHAKTS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 10:45:00 CST
From:         "T. Scott Plutchak,
              St. Louis University" <PLUTCHAKTS@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Moderating MEDLIB-L
X-To:         MEDLIB-L%UBVM.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu

Regarding moderating the list:  For all of the reasons that Nancy
states, I think it would not be worth the effort.  It's true that
each of us has to wade through material that we don't want to
read, but for each of us that's different stuff.  A moderated list
may be "cleaner", but I would regret the loss of spontanaiety and
speed with which discussions can take place.

T. Scott Plutchak
Director
Medical Center Library
St. Louis University

PLUTCHAKTS@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU
From: LROWLAND@UGA.BITNET (Lucy Rowland)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Subject: Ohio State
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:28:06 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

I need to ask a favor of someone who is at Ohio State University. Thanks.

Lucy Rowland
University of Georgia
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Cornell University Medical College, New York, NY (212) 746-4622
X-Charset: MACINTOSH
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:42:14 EST
From:         Mark Funk <Mark_Funk@QMCUMC.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject:      An adequate collection
X-To:         Medical Libraries Discussio <MEDLIB-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu>

An adequate collection
Like everyone, Cornell Medical Library is struggling with maintaining a high
quality collection for our users. We are fortunate to have other biomedical
libraries within two blocks of us (Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Rockefeller
University, Payne-Whitney Psychiatric, and the Hospital for Special
Surgery). In the last few months, the libraries of these institutions have
been working together, trying to find ways to eliminate unnecessary
duplication. A constant barrier for us has been the anticipated resistance
from faculty about losing "their" journals and having to go across the
street, even for the journals rarely consulted.

We have searched Library Literature in vain attempting to find articles
which might have defined or even discussed the levels of information needs
which a library should be expected to fulfill for its primary clientele. If
we had this information, we might be able to reason with our respective
faculties with more authority. Is anyone out there familiar with any article
which might have discussed or measured this topic? Or, does anyone have any
insights into this issue? Please send me anything you might like, and if
interest is expressed, I will summarize for the list. Thanks.

Mark Funk
Head, Collection Development
Cornell University Medical College
Mark_Funk@QMCUMC.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: MEDLIB-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"MEDLIB-L@UBVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:22:00 CST
From:         STODDAM@VUCTRVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Moderating MEDLIB-L

There was a comment about the level of "Brow-beating" on most
library listserv -- check out ARCHIVES@indycms.  This group has some
of the more long-winded, off-the-wall, personal discussions I've
seen anywhere.

I like this listserv the way it is, thanks!
MJ Stoddard / stoddam@vuctrvax
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU