If not *big* names, there are certainly some intellectual heavyweights
running about there. Not to mention that a considerable number of
list-members are, or appear to be, transhumanists.
The list is invite-only, and the quality of discussion (in my outsider's
view) ranges from usually superb to sometimes inbred, but it's one of
the best lists I've come across as far as the 'important' issues are
concerned.
Don't forget that Damien Sullivan also runs his Filtered Extropians
list. It's a great service, sometimes you miss some context, but if it's
high s/n you want, these are acceptable losses.
Point is, there are options (and as D. Broderick has suggested, a good
filter to C:/CRAP is always one of them <g>)
Boat drinks,
Keith
Yak Wax wrote:
>
> Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> > I'm quite dismayed by the number of
> > `contributors' to this list that I now
> > automatically filter straight into the
> > trash. It wasn't this way a couple of
> > years ago when I subscribed. Moan,
> > moan.
>
> I agree. Frankly I find you all terribly boring and hold many of you
> in utter contempt. But now and again among the S/N ratio moans, posts
> about grammatical errors and authors promoting new books, there's a
> brightly shinning gem. And it's those ideas I'd like to see
> encouraged. Luckily most of the good ideas come from a few main
> sources (some of which aren't me!)
>
> So is anyone interesting in setting up an invitation-only list?
> Choosing new list members would be the job of those already chosen by
> whomever wants to organise it. Maybe a web site could be set up for
> viewing (after the list member's controversial ramblings have been
> edited for public consumption) or an edited digest version sent out to
> the less fortunate non-members. We could also invite some "big names"
> in science, technology, art and (even) politics.
>
> I would get an invitation for having the idea, of course.
>
> --Wax