CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/16/99 23:17:16, max@maxmore.com wrote:
> >You could help with the above idea by suggesting possible ontologies for
> >the set of focused lists. This is not a simple matter. Should there be a
> >single list for all discussions of technologies, or divide this into
nano,
> >AI, computer tech, biotech, etc. (but drawing those distinctions will
> >sometimes be difficult). Aside from technology/technologies, there might
be
> >a list on alernative social and economic systems, one on philosophical
> >issues, or several that divide these into sub-topics.
>
> I like the idea of splitting the lists, but I think you probably shouldn't
> oversplit. "Technology" and "Social/economic systems" are good groupings
> but subgroups might not get enough posts to be viable. Good lists need
> enough material that there's always some discussion going or people
> forget about it and post elsewhere. I think list posts work like
> advertising for a list.
I agree. Based on the areas of interest that people seem to have, and the volume of posts on various topics, I'd suggest the following breakdown:
1) Technology 2) Society (economics, social/political systems, etc) 3) Philosophy/religion 4) Everything else (psychology, art, personal relations, etc.)
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
ewbrownv@mindspring.com