Shannon Appelcline wrote:
> For all of Roger's discrimination against high-brow lists that weed out
> the weak like chaff, I have to say, as a participant, JC's list work
> damned well.
I'm sure they do... for the people they serve.
> If you keep administering for the lowest common denominator, you end up
> with the lowest common denominator. Congrats.
But we *want* the lowest common denominator. We don't want people to be
cut off from the social and support uses of the net because of their
computer-illiteracy.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
