> Third, when the questions have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with
> the stated topic (such as several requests for hotel recommendations),
> that's garbage.
 
This is support of what Eric was saying about different perceptions of
garbage.  It's sort of like the definition of weeds -- weeds are whatever
you don't want growing in your yard.  In other words, some of us don't
mind at all having questions on our lists that have nothing to do with
the stated list topic.
 
> complicated in that I have a large, multi-year federal grant for the list,
 
I agree that this is a complicating factor.  (I also don't mean to suggest,
btw, that you should agree with my attitude anyway.  Some people prefer
serious, single-topic lists.  That's fine.  What I'm pointing out is simply
that you can't assume that everybody prefers for all lists to be single-
topic and serious or that everybody defines garbage in the same way.)
 
I'm rather intrigued by the concept of a federal grant for a list.  What
does the grant money pay for?
 
> that *I* am the judge, as are all other owners.  Just because one list thrives
 
I don't consider myself anything other than the mechanic on the lists I
"own."  I don't see my role as one of judging content.  The lists belong
to the subscribers.
   --Natalie ([log in to unmask])