Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[LUIS MARIA RODRIGUEZ LORENZO]

hehe, well played Lubo. People can define themselves as they wish, the  
problem is the impression we produce in others with our  
self-definitions.
still the more channels people have to reach information , the best,  
and as someone says before, if it does not work it will fade out with  
no damage.



Quoting Lubomir Smrcok :


Dear Luis,

I always find weird and sort of funny when someone cannot accept  
that some people could call themselves troglodites meaning that they  
are not very enthusiastic about ALL what other people call new and  
progressive or even an innovation. This is how I understand Larry's  
comment.


Personally, though I am younger than him I do not feel like a  
second-rate human being or depleted of any important scientific  
information when I completely ignore facebook and its clones. This  
way of communication or, better, its information contents, strongly  
resembles that described in Brave New World by A.Huxley. Though  
published in 1932, it has been somehow ahead of the times.


A word of warning for facebookers : be careful, this is a book  
(check the word with any good on-line service).  Fortunately, it is  
offered also for Kindle so no worry for being seen with a pretty  
thick piece of paper.


Best,
Lubo




On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, LUIS MARIA RODRIGUEZ LORENZO wrote:



Dear all,

Although not an active player on this list, except maybe in my  
early days in late 90,s,(science , took me in a different  
direction) I still keep track of what is happening in "the  
Refinement  world" and i would like to add my thoughts on this non  
technical matter.
The generation of people called millennials  and young scientists  
among them, get inform through facebook and similar. That link them  
to several sources of information without attaching them to one  
single source .


A facebook page related and linked to this discussion group could  
be the gate to new researchers (students) to this page and have a  
positive influence on the size of this community and their access  
to the very specific questions and knowledge that are usually  
discussed here. Their alternative can be the use of the potent  
available software to have results without guidance (e.g after , no  
sensible responses have been obtained through linkedyn or research  
gate, to name some, because nobody with the right expertise is  
there). It does not have to be a different or parallel discussion  
group, and it does not imply that you have to join  or use any new  
group. it is most likely to have a positive effect or maybe just  
null in the worst scenario.


In a more personal opinion , i always find weird and sort of funny,  
when people, whose work is to develop and spread knowledge, is  
proud to be a "troglodite" and do not dare to experience  
innovation. Facebook does not change  the way Science "should" be  
done but it may change the way of communicating .


Please dont take offence for my last comment , that is out of my purpose.
Best regards
Luis



Quoting Reinhard Kleeberg :

To be honest, I can't imagine that crystallographic knowledge can  
be effectively transmitted via facebook. Probably one could safe  
time by reading some basic textbooks instead of "liking" and  
"following". The same holds for other "asocial" (Lubo, I like this  
statement!) networks like researchgate, what also waste the time  
even of uninvolved people by spamming, just for generating profits  
by the companies.


The central points have already been fixed by Alan:

The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions
aren't anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users'
information, publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive
of discussion that is open to all, even those who don't have an account.

This is like science should be. Alan, thank you very much for all  
your altruistic efforts with the list!

Greetings

Reinhard



Am 08/06/2015 um 14:00 schrieb Davide Levy:

I want say something more about my decision to open the group in FB.
There is many people the use the Rietveld method as a magic black box:
insert the data, read the cif of the phase and obtain the  
results. Then they

say "twenty-one" and "forty-one" when they see a symmetry group!
Maybe a POP-group in FB can teach more about crystallography to a larger
group of scientist!
this is my opinion.
Davide

-Original Message-
From: rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr  
[mailto:rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr] On Behalf

Of Lubomir Smrcok
Sent: 08 June, 2015 2:49 PM
To: Alan Hewat
Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

Dear Alan,

There are plenty of people who call usage of so-called social  
networks (they

are, in fact, very asocial) "a progress". I would suggest to consider De
gustibus non est disputandum, but also Duo cum faciunt idem, non est idem.

Although I am not member of any of those asocial nets and do not  
plan to be,

I sometimes think of the end of such services li

Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[Lubomir Smrcok]

Dear Luis,

I always find weird and sort of funny when someone cannot accept that some 
people could call themselves troglodites meaning that they are not very 
enthusiastic about ALL what other people call new and progressive or 
even an innovation. This is how I understand Larry's comment.


Personally, though I am younger than him I do not feel like a second-rate 
human being or depleted of any important scientific information when I 
completely ignore facebook and its clones. This way of communication or, 
better, its information contents, strongly resembles that described in 
Brave New World by A.Huxley. Though published in 1932, it has been somehow 
ahead of the times.


A word of warning for facebookers : be careful, this is a book (check the 
word with any good on-line service).  Fortunately, it is offered also for 
Kindle so no worry for being seen with a pretty thick piece of paper.


Best,
Lubo




On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, LUIS MARIA RODRIGUEZ LORENZO wrote:



Dear all,

Although not an active player on this list, except maybe in my early days in 
late 90,s,(science , took me in a different direction) I still keep track of 
what is happening in "the Refinement  world" and i would like to add my 
thoughts on this non technical matter.
The generation of people called millennials  and young scientists among them, 
get inform through facebook and similar. That link them to several sources of 
information without attaching them to one single source .


A facebook page related and linked to this discussion group could be the gate 
to new researchers (students) to this page and have a positive influence on 
the size of this community and their access to the very specific questions 
and knowledge that are usually discussed here. Their alternative can be the 
use of the potent available software to have results without guidance (e.g 
after , no sensible responses have been obtained through linkedyn or research 
gate, to name some, because nobody with the right expertise is there). It 
does not have to be a different or parallel discussion group, and it does not 
imply that you have to join  or use any new group. it is most likely to have 
a positive effect or maybe just null in the worst scenario.


In a more personal opinion , i always find weird and sort of funny, when 
people, whose work is to develop and spread knowledge, is proud to be a 
"troglodite" and do not dare to experience innovation. Facebook does not 
change  the way Science "should" be done but it may change the way of 
communicating .


Please dont take offence for my last comment , that is out of my purpose.
Best regards
Luis



Quoting Reinhard Kleeberg :

To be honest, I can't imagine that crystallographic knowledge can be 
effectively transmitted via facebook. Probably one could safe time by 
reading some basic textbooks instead of "liking" and "following". The same 
holds for other "asocial" (Lubo, I like this statement!) networks like 
researchgate, what also waste the time even of uninvolved people by 
spamming, just for generating profits by the companies.


The central points have already been fixed by Alan:

The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions
aren't anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users'
information, publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive
of discussion that is open to all, even those who don't have an account.

This is like science should be. Alan, thank you very much for all your 
altruistic efforts with the list!

Greetings

Reinhard



Am 08/06/2015 um 14:00 schrieb Davide Levy:

I want say something more about my decision to open the group in FB.
There is many people the use the Rietveld method as a magic black box:
insert the data, read the cif of the phase and obtain the results. Then 
they

say "twenty-one" and "forty-one" when they see a symmetry group!
Maybe a POP-group in FB can teach more about crystallography to a larger
group of scientist!
this is my opinion.
Davide

-Original Message-
From: rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr [mailto:rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr] On 
Behalf

Of Lubomir Smrcok
Sent: 08 June, 2015 2:49 PM
To: Alan Hewat
Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

Dear Alan,

There are plenty of people who call usage of so-called social networks 
(they

are, in fact, very asocial) "a progress". I would suggest to consider De
gustibus non est disputandum, but also Duo cum faciunt idem, non est idem.

Although I am not member of any of those asocial nets and do not plan to 
be,

I sometimes think of the end of such services like Gopher. Maybe we have
around a generation, who prefers to share instead of to search, think &
write. What a prefect opportunity for commercial companies :-)

Best,
Lubo


On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Alan Hewat wrote:


I can understand that people have different ideas about the ideal
format for discussion, and for some of us email may seem a little "old
fashioned". I suppose we could al

Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[LUIS MARIA RODRIGUEZ LORENZO]

Dear all,

Although not an active player on this list, except maybe in my early  
days in late 90,s,(science , took me in a different direction) I still  
keep track of what is happening in "the Refinement  world" and i would  
like to add my thoughts on this non technical matter.
 The generation of people called millennials  and young scientists  
among them, get inform through facebook and similar. That link them to  
several sources of information without attaching them to one single  
source .


A facebook page related and linked to this discussion group could be  
the gate to new researchers (students) to this page and have a  
positive influence on the size of this community and their access to  
the very specific questions and knowledge that are usually discussed  
here. Their alternative can be the use of the potent available  
software to have results without guidance (e.g after , no sensible  
responses have been obtained through linkedyn or research gate, to  
name some, because nobody with the right expertise is there). It does  
not have to be a different or parallel discussion group, and it does  
not imply that you have to join  or use any new group. it is most  
likely to have a positive effect or maybe just null in the worst  
scenario.


In a more personal opinion , i always find weird and sort of funny,  
when people, whose work is to develop and spread knowledge, is proud  
to be a "troglodite" and do not dare to experience innovation.  
Facebook does not change  the way Science "should" be done but it may  
change the way of communicating .


Please dont take offence for my last comment , that is out of my purpose.
Best regards
Luis



Quoting Reinhard Kleeberg :

To be honest, I can't imagine that crystallographic knowledge can be  
effectively transmitted via facebook. Probably one could safe time  
by reading some basic textbooks instead of "liking" and "following".  
The same holds for other "asocial" (Lubo, I like this statement!)  
networks like researchgate, what also waste the time even of  
uninvolved people by spamming, just for generating profits by the  
companies.


The central points have already been fixed by Alan:

The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions
aren't anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users'
information, publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive
of discussion that is open to all, even those who don't have an account.

This is like science should be. Alan, thank you very much for all  
your altruistic efforts with the list!

Greetings

Reinhard



Am 08/06/2015 um 14:00 schrieb Davide Levy:

I want say something more about my decision to open the group in FB.
There is many people the use the Rietveld method as a magic black box:
insert the data, read the cif of the phase and obtain the results. Then they
say "twenty-one" and "forty-one" when they see a symmetry group!
Maybe a POP-group in FB can teach more about crystallography to a larger
group of scientist!
this is my opinion.
Davide

-Original Message-
From: rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr [mailto:rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr] On Behalf
Of Lubomir Smrcok
Sent: 08 June, 2015 2:49 PM
To: Alan Hewat
Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

Dear Alan,

There are plenty of people who call usage of so-called social networks (they
are, in fact, very asocial) "a progress". I would suggest to consider De
gustibus non est disputandum, but also Duo cum faciunt idem, non est idem.

Although I am not member of any of those asocial nets and do not plan to be,
I sometimes think of the end of such services like Gopher. Maybe we have
around a generation, who prefers to share instead of to search, think &
write. What a prefect opportunity for commercial companies :-)

Best,
Lubo


On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Alan Hewat wrote:


I can understand that people have different ideas about the ideal
format for discussion, and for some of us email may seem a little "old
fashioned". I suppose we could also use Twitter or any of the other
social chattering forums. But multiple groups on the same subject
disperses the available information, and it would be good to have some
kind of consensus rather than individual initiatives.
The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions
aren't anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users'
information, publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive
of discussion that is open to all, even those who don't have an account.

I myself simply inherited the list, but think it worth maintaining,
and would discourage members from posting to multiple groups on the
same subject.

Alan. (What, me worry ? :-)

On 8 June 2015 at 09:24, davide levy  wrote:

  Good Morning
  I created the Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook,
  to speak about powder diffraction, Rietveld etc..  open for all
  use powder diffraction.
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/10

Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[Larry Finger]

I "belong" to Facebook, but I almost never post there. My wife uses one of our 
Linux machines to read it so that she can keep up with the postings of our 
children and grandchildren.As it is very easy to get malware from Facebook, she 
never uses her own computer with Windows 7 as OS.


Anything posted to a powder diffraction group at Facebook will be unknown to me 
unless it is also posted here.


Troglodyte Larry

++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++

Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[Reinhard Kleeberg]

To be honest, I can't imagine that crystallographic knowledge can be 
effectively transmitted via facebook. Probably one could safe time by 
reading some basic textbooks instead of "liking" and "following". The 
same holds for other "asocial" (Lubo, I like this statement!) networks 
like researchgate, what also waste the time even of uninvolved people by 
spamming, just for generating profits by the companies.


The central points have already been fixed by Alan:

The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions
aren't anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users'
information, publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive
of discussion that is open to all, even those who don't have an account.

This is like science should be. Alan, thank you very much for all your 
altruistic efforts with the list!

Greetings

Reinhard



Am 08/06/2015 um 14:00 schrieb Davide Levy:

I want say something more about my decision to open the group in FB.
There is many people the use the Rietveld method as a magic black box:
insert the data, read the cif of the phase and obtain the results. Then they
say "twenty-one" and "forty-one" when they see a symmetry group!
Maybe a POP-group in FB can teach more about crystallography to a larger
group of scientist!
this is my opinion.
Davide

-Original Message-
From: rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr [mailto:rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr] On Behalf
Of Lubomir Smrcok
Sent: 08 June, 2015 2:49 PM
To: Alan Hewat
Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

Dear Alan,

There are plenty of people who call usage of so-called social networks (they
are, in fact, very asocial) "a progress". I would suggest to consider De
gustibus non est disputandum, but also Duo cum faciunt idem, non est idem.

Although I am not member of any of those asocial nets and do not plan to be,
I sometimes think of the end of such services like Gopher. Maybe we have
around a generation, who prefers to share instead of to search, think &
write. What a prefect opportunity for commercial companies :-)

Best,
Lubo


On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Alan Hewat wrote:


I can understand that people have different ideas about the ideal
format for discussion, and for some of us email may seem a little "old
fashioned". I suppose we could also use Twitter or any of the other
social chattering forums. But multiple groups on the same subject
disperses the available information, and it would be good to have some
kind of consensus rather than individual initiatives.
The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions
aren't anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users'
information, publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive
of discussion that is open to all, even those who don't have an account.

I myself simply inherited the list, but think it worth maintaining,
and would discourage members from posting to multiple groups on the
same subject.

Alan. (What, me worry ? :-)

On 8 June 2015 at 09:24, davide levy  wrote:

   Good Morning
   I created the Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook,
   to speak about powder diffraction, Rietveld etc..  open for all
   use powder diffraction.
   https://www.facebook.com/groups/1087352967946225/
   Davide


++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list
 Send commands to  eg:
HELP as the subject with no body text The Rietveld_L list archive is
on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++





--
__
Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics, Grenoble, FRANCE
 +33.476.98.41.68
 http://www.NeutronOptics.com/hewat
__





--
TU Bergakademie Freiberg
Dr. R. Kleeberg
Mineralogisches Labor
Brennhausgasse 14
D-09596 Freiberg

Tel.++49 (0) 3731-39-3244
Fax. ++49 (0) 3731-39-3129

++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++

Re:Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[azurebayer]

Dear all,
What websites are you talking about? Facebook?Twitter? Google? They never, 
never exist! How could we visit the websites that never exist?
Just a joke.
It costs time, money and luck for 'some of us' to visit those 'never exist' 
websites, so I prefer the mailing list and greetings to Alan for your 
maintenance of the list!

S.Z.


--


Song Zhen

Department of Materials Physics and Chemistry

University of Science and Technology Beijing



At 2015-06-08 16:14:03, "Alan Hewat"  wrote:

I can understand that people have different ideas about the ideal format for 
discussion, and for some of us email may seem a little "old fashioned". I 
suppose we could also use Twitter or any of the other social chattering forums. 
But multiple groups on the same subject disperses the available information, 
and it would be good to have some kind of consensus rather than individual 
initiatives. 


The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions aren't 
anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users' information, 
publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive of discussion that is 
open to all, even those who don't have an account. 


I myself simply inherited the list, but think it worth maintaining, and would 
discourage members from posting to multiple groups on the same subject.


Alan. (What, me worry ? :-)


On 8 June 2015 at 09:24, davide levy  wrote:


Good Morning
I created the Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook, to speak about 
powder diffraction, Rietveld etc..  open for all use powder diffraction.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1087352967946225/
Davide


++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++








--

__

   Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics, Grenoble, FRANCE 
 +33.476.98.41.68
http://www.NeutronOptics.com/hewat
__++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++

RE: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[Davide Levy]

I want say something more about my decision to open the group in FB.
There is many people the use the Rietveld method as a magic black box:
insert the data, read the cif of the phase and obtain the results. Then they
say "twenty-one" and "forty-one" when they see a symmetry group!
Maybe a POP-group in FB can teach more about crystallography to a larger
group of scientist! 
this is my opinion. 
Davide 

-Original Message-
From: rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr [mailto:rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr] On Behalf
Of Lubomir Smrcok
Sent: 08 June, 2015 2:49 PM
To: Alan Hewat
Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

Dear Alan,

There are plenty of people who call usage of so-called social networks (they
are, in fact, very asocial) "a progress". I would suggest to consider De
gustibus non est disputandum, but also Duo cum faciunt idem, non est idem.

Although I am not member of any of those asocial nets and do not plan to be,
I sometimes think of the end of such services like Gopher. Maybe we have
around a generation, who prefers to share instead of to search, think &
write. What a prefect opportunity for commercial companies :-)

Best,
Lubo


On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Alan Hewat wrote:

> I can understand that people have different ideas about the ideal 
> format for discussion, and for some of us email may seem a little "old 
> fashioned". I suppose we could also use Twitter or any of the other 
> social chattering forums. But multiple groups on the same subject 
> disperses the available information, and it would be good to have some 
> kind of consensus rather than individual initiatives.
> The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions 
> aren't anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users' 
> information, publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive 
> of discussion that is open to all, even those who don't have an account.
> 
> I myself simply inherited the list, but think it worth maintaining, 
> and would discourage members from posting to multiple groups on the 
> same subject.
> 
> Alan. (What, me worry ? :-)
> 
> On 8 June 2015 at 09:24, davide levy  wrote:
>
>   Good Morning
>   I created the Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook,
>   to speak about powder diffraction, Rietveld etc..  open for all
>   use powder diffraction.
>   https://www.facebook.com/groups/1087352967946225/
>   Davide
> 
> 
> ++
> Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
>  Send commands to  eg: 
> HELP as the subject with no body text The Rietveld_L list archive is 
> on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
> ++
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> __
>    Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics, Grenoble, FRANCE 
>  +33.476.98.41.68
>         http://www.NeutronOptics.com/hewat
> __
> 
>

++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++

Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[Lubomir Smrcok]

Dear Alan,

There are plenty of people who call usage of so-called social networks 
(they are, in fact, very asocial) "a progress". I would suggest to 
consider De gustibus non est disputandum, but also Duo cum faciunt idem, 
non est idem.


Although I am not member of any of those asocial nets and do not plan to 
be, I sometimes think of the end of such services like Gopher. Maybe we 
have around a generation, who prefers to share instead of to search, think 
& write. What a prefect opportunity for commercial companies :-)


Best,
Lubo


On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Alan Hewat wrote:


I can understand that people have different ideas about the ideal format for
discussion, and for some of us email may seem a little "old fashioned". I
suppose we could also use Twitter or any of the other social chattering
forums. But multiple groups on the same subject disperses the available
information, and it would be good to have some kind of consensus rather than
individual initiatives. 
The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions aren't
anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users' information,
publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive of discussion that
is open to all, even those who don't have an account. 

I myself simply inherited the list, but think it worth maintaining, and
would discourage members from posting to multiple groups on the same
subject.

Alan. (What, me worry ? :-)

On 8 June 2015 at 09:24, davide levy  wrote:

  Good Morning
  I created the Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook,
  to speak about powder diffraction, Rietveld etc..  open for all
  use powder diffraction.
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/1087352967946225/
  Davide


++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list

Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no
body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on
http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++





--
__
   Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics, Grenoble, FRANCE 
 +33.476.98.41.68
        http://www.NeutronOptics.com/hewat
__

++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++

RE: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[Cline, James Dr.]

Facebook is a commercial operation that is out to mine data from its users.  
I’ll stick with the Rietveld listserv.

Jim


James P. Cline
Materials Measurement Science Division
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Dr. stop 8520 [ B113 / Bldg 217 ]
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8523USA
jcl...@nist.gov
(301) 975 5793
FAX (301) 975 5334

From: rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr [mailto:rietveld_l-requ...@ill.fr] On Behalf Of 
Davide Levy
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 7:33 AM
To: 'Alan Hewat'
Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: RE: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

Alan,
it is only another way to discuss on powder diffraction.
Davide

From: alan.he...@gmail.com 
[mailto:alan.he...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alan Hewat
Sent: 08 June, 2015 11:14 AM
To: davide levy
Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

I can understand that people have different ideas about the ideal format for 
discussion, and for some of us email may seem a little "old fashioned". I 
suppose we could also use Twitter or any of the other social chattering forums. 
But multiple groups on the same subject disperses the available information, 
and it would be good to have some kind of consensus rather than individual 
initiatives.

The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions aren't 
anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users' information, 
publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive of discussion that is 
open to all, even those who don't have an account.

I myself simply inherited the list, but think it worth maintaining, and would 
discourage members from posting to multiple groups on the same subject.

Alan. (What, me worry ? :-)

On 8 June 2015 at 09:24, davide levy 
mailto:davide.lev...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Good Morning
I created the Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook, to speak about 
powder diffraction, Rietveld etc..  open for all use powder diffraction.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1087352967946225/
Davide

++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
mailto:alan.he...@neutronoptics.com>>
Send commands to mailto:lists...@ill.fr>> eg: HELP as the 
subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++



--
__
   Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics, Grenoble, FRANCE
mailto:alan.he...@neutronoptics.com>> 
+33.476.98.41.68
http://www.NeutronOptics.com/hewat
__
++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++

RE: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[Davide Levy]

Alan, 
it is only another way to discuss on powder diffraction. 
Davide 

 

From: alan.he...@gmail.com [mailto:alan.he...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alan Hewat
Sent: 08 June, 2015 11:14 AM
To: davide levy
Cc: rietveld_l@ill.fr
Subject: Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

 

I can understand that people have different ideas about the ideal format for 
discussion, and for some of us email may seem a little "old fashioned". I 
suppose we could also use Twitter or any of the other social chattering forums. 
But multiple groups on the same subject disperses the available information, 
and it would be good to have some kind of consensus rather than individual 
initiatives. 

 

The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions aren't 
anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users' information, 
publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive of discussion that is 
open to all, even those who don't have an account. 

 

I myself simply inherited the list, but think it worth maintaining, and would 
discourage members from posting to multiple groups on the same subject.

 

Alan. (What, me worry ? :-)

 

On 8 June 2015 at 09:24, davide levy mailto:davide.lev...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Good Morning 
I created the Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook, to speak about 
powder diffraction, Rietveld etc..  open for all use powder diffraction.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1087352967946225/
Davide 


++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list mailto:alan.he...@neutronoptics.com> >
Send commands to mailto:lists...@ill.fr> > eg: HELP as the 
subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++







 

-- 

__

   Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics, Grenoble, FRANCE 

mailto:alan.he...@neutronoptics.com> > 
+33.476.98.41.68
http://www.NeutronOptics.com/hewat
__

++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++

Re: Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[Alan Hewat]

I can understand that people have different ideas about the ideal format
for discussion, and for some of us email may seem a little "old fashioned".
I suppose we could also use Twitter or any of the other social chattering
forums. But multiple groups on the same subject disperses the available
information, and it would be good to have some kind of consensus rather
than individual initiatives.

The advantage of the Rietveld mailing list is that contributions aren't
anonymous, it is not commercial and no use is made of users' information,
publicity is limited, and there is a structured archive of discussion that
is open to all, even those who don't have an account.

I myself simply inherited the list, but think it worth maintaining, and
would discourage members from posting to multiple groups on the same
subject.

Alan. (What, me worry ? :-)

On 8 June 2015 at 09:24, davide levy  wrote:

> Good Morning
> I created the Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook, to speak
> about powder diffraction, Rietveld etc..  open for all use powder
> diffraction.
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1087352967946225/
> Davide
>
> ++
> Please do NOT attach files to the whole list  >
> Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body
> text
> The Rietveld_L list archive is on
> http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
> ++
>
>
>


-- 
__
*   Dr Alan Hewat, NeutronOptics, Grenoble, FRANCE *
 +33.476.98.41.68
http://www.NeutronOptics.com/hewat
__
++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++

Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook

[davide levy]

Good Morning 
I created the Powder Diffraction Discussion Group on Facebook, to speak
about powder diffraction, Rietveld etc..  open for all use powder
diffraction.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1087352967946225/
Davide 

++
Please do NOT attach files to the whole list 
Send commands to  eg: HELP as the subject with no body text
The Rietveld_L list archive is on http://www.mail-archive.com/rietveld_l@ill.fr/
++