document id:
parent link
archive link
publisher id:
date written:
21 May 97
(notes for this file:) this document is part of "How to Build the Party of the Future"

Party of the Future -- Discussion on Chapter 1

bozo filtering and
human software technology

 Contents:       TIP: Clicking on any of the paragraph numbers
 ---------            along the left margin
                      will take you back and forth
                      between the body of the article
                      and the table of contents.
number           chapters sections subheads
   7  Ben goofs:
     Andrew Wayne Austin is NOT a bozo 
  24     1 -- For open methods of struggle 
  35     2 -- The need for democratic methods
               of deciding who to ignore 
  56     3 -- A two-tiered system 
  62         example 1: summaries or abstracts 
  64         example 2: higher expections 
  66         example 3: tighter limits on posts per week 
  68         example 4: web-based interface sorted by thread 
  71     4 -- A text-based news service 
  91  Andrew Wayne Austin (May 1) 
  98  Andrew Wayne Austin (May 21) 
 110  Louis Proyect (May 21) 

Hi Folks,
First I must apologize for taking so long to reply to the comments generated by chapter one of "How to Build the Party of the Future". Part of the culture here on M-I is timely replies and I must make an effort to be part of this culture.
I had decided to delay posting chapter two until I could find time to reply to points raised in chapter one. This turned out to be unrealistic, partly because my replies necessitated a bit of homework and partly because a calm reply will often take more thought than a quick one.
From now on however, I will not delay the chapters but will strive to keep them coming out on schedule--even if this means that my replies get out of sync with the chapters.
   Tonite:    I conclude that Andrew Wayne Austin's complaint
              against me is partially justified.
   Tomorrow:  boddhisatva takes on Moore's Law
Ben goofs:
Andrew Wayne Austin is NOT a bozo
The most important part of the culture on M-I is that everyone strives to recognize and correct their own errors. More than any other factor, it is this feature of the culture here that makes it clear that this list has a role to play in building the party of the future.
Unfortunately, speedy self-criticism is not one of my own strong points. Many times, when I have been criticized, my recognition of my errors has taken months or years and a fair amount of effort on the part of others.
In this case, however, where I had implied that Andrew Wayne Austin is a bozo--I find it easy to recognize my error. I goofed.
Andrew is not a bozo and the story here may possibly be of interest (and if it is not folks--just hit the "page down" key to skip to the next section where boddhisatva takes on Moore's Law).
My criteria for putting someone on my "bozo" filter list--is that they are "aggressively clueless" in at least two separate posts. I put Andrew on my "bozo list" around January when he was engaged in a dispute with others which probably did not represent him at his strongest. When Andrew challenged my judgement in putting him on this list--I realized that I had no clear recollection of exactly what he had written that met the "aggressively clueless" criteria. So, in fairness to him, I decided to read all his posts for the next week with an open mind.
What I learned is that Andrew does appear to have a fair amount of talent. He does a lot of reading and summarizes the ideas he finds in the language that is often used by the authors and the academic community. Unfortunately, this language is sometimes difficult to read and, most likely, this was a factor in my getting frustrated reading Andrew's posts.
Personally, I would like to see Andrew illustrate his arguments with well-chosen examples. Well-chosen examples are the heart of any good argument. Truth is always concrete and any political argument that lacks well-chosen examples will always seem pallid and lifeless to readers because abstract words are clumsy instruments and may mean a hundred different things to a hundred different people.
I believe that contributors such as Andrew will learn to express themselves with greater force and clarity as the present period of confused struggle gives way to a period in which the underlying principles of decisive importance assert themselves with greater urgency and the needs of the class struggle on the theoretical front give rise to a sense of controlled fury. "Necessity", the old saying goes, "is the mother of invention".
It is an issue for lists such as this to find ways to harness the talents and abilities of contributors such as Andrew (who has potential and is a definite asset). As this list develops, as this list continues to sharpen its focus and begins to influence the development of organizations dedicated to the class struggle in various countries, I believe that we will all learn to express ourselves with greater clarity and power.
Part of this process is for us to develop a greater awareness of what issues (and what principles) are the most decisive for moving things forward.
Radical developments must take place in these areas if we are to accept our historic responsibilities.
Andrew, for example, says that it is "uncomradely and unwise" for me to "praise some and insult others" by talking about my "bozo list" and indicates that he is concerned about "marginalization".
I think this indicates that Andrew and I have different conceptions of how this list will develop.
I believe that this list can only become a powerful weapon by developing a culture in which we all are fairly free with blunt assessments of one another's strengths and weaknesses. In many cases these assessments will be wrong, but by making our views public (and keeping our minds open in the process) we enable ourselves to most rapidly recognize and correct wrong assessments of one another. Case in point: by publically identifying Andrew as someone on my bozo list (and by his public challenge of my judgement) my error in placing him on this list was quickly corrected.
Imperialist culture teaches us to be weak. Imperialist culture teaches us that there is nothing more important than ourselves as individuals. We are in the process of creating another kind of culture here. We are in the process of creating a culture that teaches us that we have the ability to put aside and disregard our personal feelings and join with others to create miracles.
In any real organization of humans engaged in a profound undertaking, it will always be the case that some participants will be more on the margins of the collective effort than others. This is because consciousness is not evenly distributed amongst everyone. Some are, for whatever reasons, more conscious of the real necessitites of development than others. Some participants are more worthy of attention than others because they are closer to an understanding of the principles which reflect the objective necessities of real development.
1 -- For open methods of struggle
Our objective is not to do away with the process of deciding who should be worthy of attention and who should be consigned to the margins of our collective effort--but rather must be to make this process more democratic and powerful. I assert that the most rapid and powerful process of sorting out who stands closest to those principles for which we are prepared to live and to die--is an open process in which the basic and important information about who has a clue and who does not--not be restricted to a select group of insiders but is available to the widest possible numbers and (eventually--as the communications revolution unfolds) to the masses themselves--who will lend us invaluable and decisive assistance in sorting out these decisive principles.
It is natural and inevitable that passions will be aroused in the process of sorting out which principles will emerge to guide our efforts. It is inevitable that many people will end up on the margins of our effort who will believe that they belong in the center. What we want is to transform our view of this process--so that we may see it--as a struggle for the victory of certain principles rather than for the status of various personalities.
Experience and history show us that individuals and personalities constantly undergo a process of either political development or decay but principles provide a constant and reliable compass that can show us, amidst the darkness and confusion, the way forward.
If someone finds themselves at the margins of our collective effort and believes that they are worthy of greater attention--then they will find that attention comes to those who earn it via their loyalty to certain principles and their ability in practice to champion the victory of these key principles.
Just what the principles are that must guide us if we are to serve the peoples of the world--will be decided in the period ahead. It is the purpose of this "Party of the Future" series to lay down certain of the principles which I believe must guide our efforts if we are to avoid the fate of countless earlier efforts which have degenerated or collapsed. I fully expect that some of the key principles which I raise will, in the course of time, win wide acceptance in forums such as this. This will not, of course, be the result of my efforts alone. My efforts in this regard will likely be fairly modest. Rather, certain principles will win hedgemony in forums such as this because they correspond to the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.
But I do intend, within the limits of my modest abilitites, to fight for the victory of certain key principles and to see that these principles achieve hedgemony here and, eventually, everyplace on earth. And I do expect opposition to develop to the acceptance of these principles--as well as a great deal of confusion in which many participants and readers will feel that they must allow sufficient time for the dust to settle before they will feel comfortable drawing firm conclusions.
My intention, over the long run, is to:
   (a) champion certain principles,
   (b) help clarify the inevitably complex
       and disorganized struggle between principles, and
   (c) in this process to gradually win over many others
       to the support of these principles.
One such example of a principle which I believe will inevitably win acceptance here--is belief in the power of Moore's Law and of the immense power which it will place within our hands to wage "information war". With such power we will have the ability to storm heaven and liberate humanity.
We are standing on the eve of the greatest communications revolution in human history. We must learn how to harness the power of this communications revolution if we are to uphold our responsibilities. Part of learning how to harness the power of this communications revolution is to master the use of "collaborative" methods (such as "collaborative filtering") to resolve disputes over principles, personalities and behavior.
2 -- The need for democratic methods
of deciding who to ignore
At the present time, this list is in a relatively quiescent period of development. Not that many weeks ago we had people on this list describing the physical injuries and forms of death they felt would be appropriate for one another. Since that time, and after much urging, the "troublemakers" have gone off to form their own list where they can pursue their own development in an environment in which they are more comfortable. And hopefully, by the time they resume active work back here, they will have a more realistic understanding of how to conduct themselves such that they can combine their energies with others (including those with whom they disagree) in a more productive way.
So things are relatively quiet--for now. But we should not forget that we have, in effect, "purchased" this interval of relatively quiet and peaceful cooperation--in exchange for postponing real discussion of the fundamental issues which must be resolved before any real attempt can be made to overthrow bourgeois rule and, in its place, to create something better.
Such a period of peaceful development cannot be maintained on this list permanently--without our abandoning the historic mission that is the reason many of us are here.
Sooner or later we must take up anew the task of sorting out what a system of workers' rule will look like in the modern world. And such a task will inevitably lead us to consideration of what happened to the previous great attempts to do this in 1917, 1949, etc.
Such discussion of the fundamental issues will inevitably, so to speak, bring all the know-it-alls, sectarian "religious" fanatics, charlatans and unstable personalities out of the woodwork. On top of all this there will also be some heavy-duty disagreements about politics ;-)
In such an atmosphere there is inevitably a great deal of discussion over what is appropriate behavior and what are appropriate means of enforcing appropriate behavior.
And generally, the result of all this is that pressure falls on the moderators to "do something about so-and-so". But the moderators (quite correctly) generally refuse to get involved unless the offending behavior is fairly gross and obviously counter-productive.
And what we have seen is that hundreds and thousands of posts end up devoted to such topics and this will tend to become an increasing problem as the list grows.
So this raises the entire question of how a list such as this one, as it experiences growth, is able to, so to speak, separate the wheat from the chaff--separate the participants who are fairly serious and stable in their outlook and sense of commitment--from those who merely think that they are.
And this is where technologies such as "collaborative filtering" enter the picture.
As a list such as this one develops quality discussion and work--it will attract many who have both talent and a sense of commitment to the cause of the working class. This is good. At the same time, however, the same factors that attract the talented and committed will also attract the clueless. People in cyberspace naturally gravitate to where the action is.
The problem with clueless people is that they dilute what would otherwise be a concentration of talented people. It is to the advantage of the working class that talented people should find it relatively easy to find and interact with one another. And this is obstructed by the actions of the clueless--who act in a way that is analogous to the lead control rods in a nuclear reactor--they absorb energetic particles and put a damper on things.
The other problem with the clueless is that it is often a fairly labor-intensive process to distinguish them from the talented. The people who are clueless do not necessarily go around saying "I am clueless" (although some come close). And it is a time-consumming matter for people, especially new people, to sort out, as isolated atoms, who can be safely ignored without the risk of missing something important.
The way that some lists handle this problem is via a group of moderators who keep a tight grip on what kind of behavior is permitted and who is allowed to post. And this is effective for many purposes and such lists will serve a need in the development of Marxism. However--that is not the nature of this list. This list is distinguished by its relative openness.
When I first saw this list I read its charter and saw that it described itself as dedicated to the open and uncensored discussion of Marxism. "This is all very good" I said to myself "but who really runs it and what is the real agenda ?" I have been around the left a bit and know that things are not always as they appear. But I have seen that this list really has been what it has claimed to be. It is an open list. The quality of the discussion has not always been so hot--but that is the result of the abilities of the participants more than a list policy which tilts or favors one trend over another.
The openness of this list has been challenged many times, most dramatically when Adolfo and his supporters insisted that "class enemies" (which were defined in a very broad way) be expelled from it. If Anna had caved in to these demands--this list--as an uncensored list open to all who consider themselves progressive--would be dead.
But if a centralized group of moderators will not act to restrict the clueless from this list then what will ? And here is where the usefulness of "collaborative filtering" comes in. Collaborative filtering is inherently democratic. All readers can decide for themselves who to filter out and who to pay attention to. But at the same time the reader is not left, by himself, to figure everything out on his own--but rather has a wide range of choices and option in terms of leveraging the judgement of others who have shown themselves, in the reader's own judgement, to be trustworthy.
Having such a system of "collaborative filtering" will be a big step forward for us. And server-side bozo filtering will be a significant step in the direction of collaborative filtering. I believe it is likely that we will find ways to implement such methods as the need for them becomes more felt.
Andrew, speaking of my bozo list, notes: "I am not sure that all of the names in his 'bozo list' represent 'bozos'". And Andrew is quite correct. Being a bozo is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. Whether a particular post strikes a reader as offensive or stupid will often depend on many factors, including the mood of the reader at that particular time. What is important here is to empower the reader with the ability to keep unwanted material out of his inbox. In fact, once readers are given this power, once readers know that they can keep all posts from person A or person B or person C from hogging their incoming bandwidth--and once persons A, B and C realize this--then a situation is set up whereby persons A, B and C will have a greater incentive to see their posts thru the eyes of others--and improve the quality.
This dynamic is what is important. The particular identities of A, B or C is not important. And I gave examples of A, B and C because an explanation of anything is easier to grasp if well-chosen examples are given.
3 -- A two-tiered system
There are other examples of how the technology of human behavior and its interaction with software could be used to help us concentrate the valuable information that flows thru this list. I will not go into this much until the "POF" series gets to Axis 3. But I will mention another example of something that involves the development of standards which we may all eventually agree to or endorse.
It would be relatively easy to set up a two-tier system of lists. The "upper" tier would be the quality list and would be designed for a smaller number of posts but a larger readership. The "lower" tier would be the quantity list and would be designed for a larger number of posts and a smaller (and more active) readership.
Hence the upper list would be mostly passive readers (ie: have a high ratio of readers to active posters) while the lower list would have a more active readership (with a ratio of readers to posters which would be closer to one).
New readers would begin by reading only the upper list. This would be a fairly low-volume list and relatively friendly to new readers. As the interest of a reader grew, he or she would begin reading the lower list. When the reader would be ready to make his or her first post--it might be to the lower list. As the reader gained confidence and conviction he or she would post to the upper list.
The same group of people would participate in both lists but the posting to the upper (quality) list would be more restricted in various agreed upon ways. The lower (quantity) list, on the other hand, would be less restricted and would include the more casual and less formal comments.
example 1: summaries or abstracts
Just one example of a possible restriction shows how this might work: all posts to the quality list would be summarized by the authors in 200 words or less (ie: like an abstract of a scientific or technical article). This, by itself, would give readers an easier way to sort thru a large number of posts. A reader would be able to read just the abstract and gain a good idea of whether or not the post contains something of value.
example 2: higher expections
Another example of a restriction might be higher expections in terms of polemical balance or decency. For example, prior to tearing an opponent to shreads, it might be the expectation that one would first attempt to summarize what was positive or useful in an opponent's view. This, by itself, could help out considerably because it would require many people to give greater thought to what they write.
example 3: tighter limits on posts per week
Another type of restriction would involve a more severe limit on the number of posts per week allowed in the upper forum, or a requirement that beyond a certain limit, posts would require endorsement by another person.
example 4: web-based interface sorted by thread
Finally, it should be mentioned that a web-based interface could allow readers to sort thru posts by thread instead of the present arrangement in which by the time person B responds to person A -- it is difficult to remember what person A said.
It is not my purpose to try to specify in advance exactly what types of restrictions would be useful in creating a quality list that could concentrate the work of the quantity list and attract a greater readership. Such an attempt on my part would be silly because only practical experience will determine what works and what does not. But I believe it will be useful for us to start considering the various options we have to create a system of lists that better take advantage of the communications revolution that is just beginning.
4 -- A text-based news service
One post of Andrew's in particular caught my attention.
I think that, in general, the post was good in that Andrew is raising key issues. But he does not seem to be drawing the conclusions which I would like to encourage him to draw. Here is a brief excerpt and some comments:
5-3-97 Andrew Wayne Austin The Issue and Policy Elite Web (Re: M-I: UK - Rout of neo-liberalism)
"Another reason why this modification is so useful is that technological changes in electronic communications, development unforeseen by Marx, have created a new level of ideology production and distribution. The power elite model is quite useful here. Elites deliver policy options, in a highly controlled fashion, to the general public through the mass media, the culture industry, and educational institutions. This aspect of issues and policy development is crucial to marshal support from the public for elite-designed and selected policy. The public's role is the process is either to disengage from political practice (a majority of citizens consistently meet this role expectation); or affirm the opinions and policies of the elite. If all goes well, and it generally does, given the sophistication of the process, politicians enact policy and write legislation, and the public feels as though democracy happened. The illusion of choice is one of the most important elements in maintaining the structure of domination in capitalist societies."
Or, in other words, the bourgeoisie controls the mass media and schools and uses this control to keep the population ignorant and passive. This, of course, is important to understand and I have always wondered how such truths would look when expressed in academic language. Now I know :-)
But what I would like to drawn the attention of Andrew (and others) to--is that the "technological changes in electronic communications" are going to make continued bourgeois rule increasingly untenable within the lifetimes of many readers of this list.
Bourgeois rule requires the monopoly (or near-monopoly) of the mass media and political thought in general. The communications revolution is going to bring an end to the ability of the bourgeoisie to maintain a near-monopoly on the mass media and political thought. This is not a process which will take place overnight but rather will unfold over several decades. However we should be thinking today of how we can use this revolution in communications to speed up the erosion of bourgeois control of the mass media.
The internet is destined to merge with the mass media. This will mean that progressives will be able to chip away at the near-monopoly "mind share" of bourgeois news sources--even with essentially zero amounts of money. I believe that the strategic target of our main effort should be a text-based news service (please see my note 1.5 in chapter one). Why text ? Because the low-bandwidth section of the internet (ie: without pictures, audio or video) will be the most accessible portion for a collective effort that makes very little use of money.
Why should we focus on an effort that makes little use of money ? Besides the obvious answer (ie: the bourgeoisie has the money and we don't) there is another: a collective effort that involves money would require a fair degree of centralized control and a fair amount of trust between participants and contributors. On the other hand, a project that does not require anything more than trivial amounts of money would not require either centralized control nor a high degree of trust between participants.
What would be the source of most of our news ?
We could offer:
   (a) brief and original reviews and/or summaries
       of news items from both bourgeois and progressive
       newspapers, magazines and web sites, together with
       links (if applicable) to the original sources, and
   (b) optional commentary and discussion
       which would be linked to each article.
And (very importantly) we would find methods of using collaborative filtering so that readers could find what they are interested in reading and not be forced to wade thru an ocean of spam. If, for example, a reader wanted to see summaries of news articles about China in the past 90 days, it would be as easy as a few clicks--and short summaries of news articles (and summaries of original progressive commentary) would show up ranked in order of importance as voted on by progressive people.
A news service based on copyright-free items in a web-based database would not require either much money or much trust or any centralized control. All that is required would be:
   (a) simple publically negotiated agreements
       to use a uniform set of formats, and
   (b) to make everything available to anybody
       (ie: no copyrights--everything would be public domain).
There would be no tangible assets over which to quarrel. If some group of contributors should have different views on how the news service should develop--they would be free to copy, on an ongoing basis, all articles to their own server (servers can be rented for $20/month) and run things the way they thought was best.
Such a data-based type of electronic newspaper could not be controlled by any single trend (because anyone could copy it) and would also function as a sphere for both cooperation and competition between progressive trends. For example, such an electronic newspaper would not require a single "front page". Louis Proyect could extract from the database the articles that he felt were "front page" material--while Robert Malecki would have his own version of the "front page". Each "front page" could have its own default options for readers to use in filtering, etc. Needless to say, the various competing "front pages" would each have their own character.
This is the type of concrete project which I believe is worth discussion here and I would like to encourage such discussion.
Ben Seattle ----//-//
Andrew Wayne Austin (May 1)
[Andrew Wayne Austin's reply of May 1, 1997]
Ben Seattle wrote (on May Day), that in the future, when it was feasible, "If, as a reader, I decide that I have had enough of... Andrew Wayne Austin, messages from these people will not be sent to me. Period.... I do know one thing: My time is very precious and I don't want to read their posts."
This is too bad. Ben has the right to censor whatever comes into his mail box. And there is occasionally "crap" and "spam" that comes into our boxes (although I am not sure that all of the names in his "bozo list" represent "bozos"). But my posts are thoughtful and useful. My posts are appropriate to this list. I consider in my posts the issues that are presented in the charter to this list, globalization processes and the structures of transnational capitalism and how we must address them. My analysis concerns on-the-ground concrete development of the capitalist mode of production. My theory work synthesizes cutting edge Marxist (Cox, Gill, Robinson), earlier Marxist (Poulantzas, Gramsci), and nonMarxist literature. I am open to criticism; I can take thoughtful critique of my work. But to dismiss my work and consider putting me on a "bozo list" is uncomradely and unwise. My contributions and I deserve more respect than this.
If Ben has misunderstood and perceived a bandwagon to jump on, I can understand that. I have been the target of a lot of personal attacks and marginalization in the past. But this was always a mistake (many people on this list have admittedly misunderstood me) and the error has been mostly corrected.
Considering the improvement in tone and contributions to this list, Ben's choosing his first post to praise some and insult others is unfortunate.
Comradely Regards, Andrew Wayne Austin
Andrew Wayne Austin (May 21)
[Andrew Wayne Austin's reply of May 21, 1997]
Ben and List,
I appreciate Ben's post regarding my status in his eyes. I also appreciate his desire for ideographic accounting of class struggle and historical movements. I appreciate the ideographic accounts that are submitted to this list, such as vis-a-vis Zaire and in the (dis)Unit(ing) Kingdom. I see such descriptive accounting as steps in and instances for building tentative nomothetic understandings and explanations of large-scale secular structural evolution and history.
For example, I relied upon accumulating evidence collected in Asia, Africa, and South and Central America to produce a general, yet geographically differentiated accounting of the nature of superexploitation by TNCs moving in the Third World. My purpose was to provide a differentiated model that some of those who were contributing descriptive accounts of specific culture areas could use to take their descriptions to the next level, the analytical interpretive level.
I have provided several illustrations of my argument in the past, but it is the case that my arguments are usually couched at the most macro of levels, what used to be called the world system, what is better called the global economy (maybe even global social formation). This is only because, as Hegel said, the truth is the whole; we should attempt to understand events in the context of the movements of world capitalist economy and global class struggle. I can provide illustrations upon request, of course, and I would be happy to illustrate any unclear direction in my overall argument. I fail to see the problem with continuing to dialogue at the theoretic level when it is supplemented by historic examples, and I doubt Ben would disagree with this.
I would note, as I suggested to Ben some time ago when I reminded him about the archives, that, for example, I recently submitted a lengthy post on the elite issue and policy network, detailing the process of elite policy making, that was chock-full of specific examples embedded in the structural, institutional, and network analysis. If one goes back and reads that post they will find that there is very little passive voice in the text--this is because I explicitly named specific transnational actors and class fractions moving in global economy.
I am open to criticisms, and accept Ben's critique of my writings. However, I would be passive to a fault if I failed to point out that he has ignored the bulk of my work and therefore his criticisms are largely erroneous out of ignorance. I admire his indication that he will consider more fully my work in the future. Moreover, his critique of my jargon is a very old one and one that I have never been able to fully understand on a list with such gifted Marxists and neoMarxists. I use the language of modern historical materialism, a lingo that should be familiar to any Marxist who has kept up with the literature and practice of Marxism. What I don't do, of course, if use the hyperbolic rhetoric of Leninism (orthodox communism)--and for this I make no apologies.
As I have stated time and time before, and I am very passionate about this point, I will not dummy down the language of historical materialism. If we want to interpret the world from a Marxian perspective, a perspective superior to all other perspectives so far devised, then we better understand the concepts and speak the vocabulary. This is a basic requirement in my view. Habermas calls this "communicative competence," and I agree with him that it is a prerequisite to rational discourse.
Finally, I would extend my hand in friendship to Ben and make him aware that I stand read as always to explain any part of my arguments that are unclear or overly technical.
Thanks Ben for your post.
In Solidarity,
Andrew Austin
Louis Proyect (May 21)
[Louis Proyect's reply of May 21, 1997]
Ben Seattle:
example 4: web-based interface sorted by thread
Finally, it should be mentioned that a web-based interface could allow readers to sort thru posts by thread instead of the present arrangement in which by the time person B responds to person A -- it is difficult to remember what person A said.
Louis P:

I have permission from the Spoons Collective to develop such a capability for the Marxism lists. Many people have complained about how difficult it is to use the archives in researching prior threads. There is such a facility being used right now by the PEN-L mailing listserv (Progressive Economists List). It is absolutely wonderful. If it can be on a majordomo site, we should look into the possibility of getting a copy. If not, it is certainly an example of what we should shoot for.
On a related matter, the Marxism lists need a much better home page. Right now there is no overview about what all the lists are about. Somebody who just steps into the Spoons Home Page would have a hard time figuring out where to go next. Also, there should be a better way of organizing papers, etc. As soon as I get back to NY, I will devote some time to organizing my thoughts around these questions and air them on the list and with the Spoons folks.