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]