On Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:28:21 -0400 Mario Rups said:
>>To tag on to what Eric just said, it might be that broad-ranging, more
>>philosophical discussions would ideally be taken up on the new newsgroup
>>comp.mail.list-admin.policy.
>>
>>-- Roger Burns   [log in to unmask]
>
>Nice for those with access to usenet.  Not so useful for those who do not.
 
There are a couple of Listserv lists which would seem to be appropriate for
the current topic, however. Checking the global lists of lists shows:
 
CEI-L            CEI-L@AUVM        Computer Ethics Institute List
ETHICS-L         ETHICS-L@DEARN    (Peered) Discussion of Ethics in Comp
                 ETHICS-L@MARIST   (Peered) Discussion of Ethics in Comp
                 ETHICS-L@POLYVM   (Peered) Discussion of Ethics in Comp
                 ETHICS-L@UGA      (Peered) Discussion of Ethics in Comp
 
There are several other ethics oriented lists which are meant for other
topics, and a few that look (after issuing a REView command) like private
lists which should have the "Confidential= Yes" keyword in the header.
 
As always, before jumping onto a list and potentially starting up a topic
which was just discussed or is otherwise annoying, it's a good idea to listen
for a while or at least check the logs. ETHICS-L, at least, is generally a
slow list; I can't say for CEI-L.
 
>This is not to argue that the topic MUST appear on this list, or even that
>it should be deliberately made a thread.  I merely present my arguments for
>supporting Douglas Winship's position.
 
I'm inclined to mostly agree with Eric's response; I don't think that the
topic is *inappropriate* for this list per se, but there's enough 'it
depends on the forum' in the issue that hashing it out here may generate
a lot of noise. (Or maybe not, if folks don't want to discuss it here - it
depends. ;-)
 
Paul Heroy
[log in to unmask]