<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>With reference to Tim's question on
being quoted on histonet  comments, my view is that there are two
considerations (by the  time you get to the end and given my verbosity,
there may be  three).


First, we write very informally to histonet - some may say it is 
almost conference bar-room chat in style (and often not too far 
wrong).  There is abosolutely nothing wrong with that and if the 
characteristic were lost, so would be much of histonet's value.


Second, anything you write can be picked up and quoted  (accurately or
otherwise).  Even publishing in the most prestigious  journal, with the
strictest refereeing, would not stop your written  words being quoted,
and,<bigger> <bold>more importantly in this  context - misquoted.

</bold></bigger>So, the only difference is the style in which you
write.  You either  decide everything you say (or rather write) may be
quoted (and  even mis-quoted) and that makes you meticulous to a point 
incompatible with histonet, or you trade the tremendous value and  help
that histonet brings for spelling mistakes, occasional errors,  humble
aplogies and the occasional inaccurate attribute (which  may, of
course, be anonymised).


Third is to re-iterate, that anything you write down may be quoted 
somewhere and that may be accurate, inaccurate, mistaken and  even
wrongly attributed. (Didn't I warn you?)


One of lifes little vicissitudes.



Russ Allison, 

Dental School

Cardiff

Wales


</color>