The Cons DistList is potentially the best means that exists for sharing conservation information. However, its membership has not diversified significantly to represent all the sub-disciplines of the field - in spite of Walter Henry's valiant efforts to create interest. The focus of the DistList remains overwhelmingly books and paper conservation. Why is this the case, given the great need that all conservators have for access to information? Some possible reasons that occur to me: 1) There may be limitations inherent in a moderated list that inhibit discussion. The relationship with the moderator might interpose itself between peers, altering the character of free exchange. The ease of give and take, questioning and clarification, immediacy of response - the informality - of an unmoderated list are not possible in this format. 2) The DistList is firmly established as a forum for books and paper conservation. Consequently, a contribution from another specialty may be accompanied by feelings of intrusiveness. Such subtleties, coupled with the knowledge that one's specialty is not well represented on the list, might be a further constraint to participation. 3) And clearly, if the larger conservation community attempted to utilize the resources of this list, its resources would be quickly exceeded. There may be some foundation, then, for the argument in favor of separate lists for some conservation related discussions. However, mindful that museum conservation still constitutes one large interest group - archives, indices, bibliographies should probably always be kept in one location (say on the palimpsest gopher, for instance.) David Walker Talisman Textile Conservation [log in to unmask]