Erik Reuter wrote: >Therefore, a compromise occurs to me. Why not have *BOTH* a >filtered and non-filtered list. brin-l-f would be filtered in >whatever way a group of like-minded people think best (or you could >even have brin-l-f1, brin-l-f2, etc.), while brin-l would be >unfiltered. People can subscribe to whatever list they like. In >case that wasn't clear, another way of saying it is that the >messages in brin-l-f would be a subset of the messages in brin-l, >and brin-l would be a superset of brin-l-f.
So you're saying there wouldn't be more than one list, but a list where certain people don't necessarily see all the messages, if they fall within certain parameters? I understand your reasoning, but I don't know that it creates a better atmosphere than the idea that there is a "group within the group" making decisions. In either case, you have a certain percentage of the populace not really involved. Jim ------------------------------------------------ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
