From: hfinney "One possibility is a digital reputation system. Presently people and nyms develop informal reputations in the minds of their readers. This could be formalized by allowing readers to create endorsements of various types for those who have worthwhile things to say. " Could I really allow myself to be so prejudiced by what a number of others have determined is (or is not) a worthwhile contributor to a list? My interest in reading a message has first to do with the subject of attention, then second the one who has something to say. There are many types of commentary which someone could introduce at any time; sometimes in humor or sarcasm, sometimes with great insight, more or less successfully. I think whoever attends to messages on a list should consider their motives - whether they just want company, a sounding board, or whether they want to read about a particular subject of interest. The opportunity to interact with others in abstract conversation is also the opportunity to develop and refine the ability to communicate, to improve upon the formulation of a thought and express it with greater ability. I might not like the style or manner of what someone has said in the past, yet accept what they have to say some other time. But this would be my own judgement at work, not a conclusion derived from the aggregate opinion of others. I myself wouldn't pay excessive attention to a reputation system, outside of its entertainment value. Blanc