Re: [ccp4bb] I/sigmaI of >3.0 rule

[Roberto Battistutta]

Dear Phil,
I completely agree with you, your words seem to me the best
"philosophical" outcome of the discussion and indicate the right
perspective to tackle this topic. In particular you write "In the end, the
important question as ever is "does the experimental data support the
conclusions drawn from it?" and that will depend on local information
about particular atoms and groups, not on global indicators". Exactly, in
my case, all the discussion of the structures was absolutely "independent"
from having 1.9, 2.0 or 2.1 A nominal resolution, or to cut at 1.5 or 2.0
or 3.0 I/sigma. This makes the unjustified (as this two-day discussion has
clearly pointed out) "technical" critics of the reviewer even more
upsetting.
Ciao,
Roberto