Dear Jon,
Considering the link you gave:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/what-british-people-say-versus-what-they-mean
I think it would be relevant to clarify your sentence: ‘Choosing to single out
individual publications for public abuse on a mailing list is a bit of a
shame’.
I believe
There is, of course, the Neutron Mailing List, which you can subscribe to at
http://neutronsources.org/mailman/listinfo/neutron. It has a very different
character to this list. It is mostly a vehicle for making announcements about
conferences, job positions, proposal calls, etc. We did
Alan,
the latest thread on Rietveld and powder diffraction has been most interesting
and even thought-provoking. So you should be encouraged to continue
with this group. I read it regularly and value it a lot. Some particular
comments, if I may:
1. Your point about all structures being
After reading the slew of emails that landed in my inbox over the last couple
of days I'll put my hat on as CPD chair and put my head above the parapet
(hopefully not to be shot at)
The IUCr (and others) have tried to get journals to use powder cifs and
checkcif for structures for some
