<HTML>In a message dated 3/26/03 8:40:56 AM Central Standard= Time, davidskolnik@optonline.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I wonder how closely the above&= nbsp; list conforms to the way others might have categorized these subjects?= Presenting this data is in NO WAY meant to suggest judgement as to the merit= of these posts.  Over the next few weeks, and even looking back at pre= vious weeks/months, it would be interesting to see how clearly (or not) the = lines defining technical relevance can be drawn.   If there appear= s to be some consensus, then a OT list, paralleling PIANOTECH,  as I de= scribed last week, might be a very viable option, yet, even on such a list, = I suspect there would still be the need to establish protocols, to prevent i= t from deteriorating into chaos, or being usurped by the more articulate or = prolific subscribers. David Skolnik  RPT </BLOCKQUOTE> For what it is worth, I look at this list as if we were all sitting in a roo= m, discussing piano tuning and technology. But because we are also human, an= d all of us have outside interests, other topics might surface from time to = time. As you found with your tally, the list is mostly about piano related t= opics. If an OT comes across once in a while, I don't see any harm in it. It= is up to the individual to decide to participate in that topic. The delete = button works wonders. Wim </HTML>