I note as comments get longer the math question captcha gets harder, is that on purpose. Also: This is my LAST comment on this ;) ... I too much love written debates, and they are very bad for merit-filled things like accomplishing tasks that I need to accomplish.

M: "But I don't know if I am saying no value judgments at all. Just that most things have value in relation to other things, not as isolated examples of fitness or lack of fit. I think most lists don't do a good job of displaying how the value of something has more to do with relationships and less to do with that thing or persons place in a hierarchy."

H: Yes. "Value in relation to other things" = merit. Define your "other things" as you will, measure things with value in relation to such things, and you have merit. For instance:
"things" = URLS
"other things" = geeky projects done by people I know
"value" = achieving benefits to the universe, as defined by Hugh

therefore URLs about geeky projects that are achieving benefits have by my definition "merit" and I display that "merit" by linking to them.

M: "I think most lists don't do a good job of displaying how the value of something has more to do with relationships and less to do with that thing or persons place in a hierarchy."

H: I'm not sure what that means exactly, but lists of "cool geek projects done by friends of Hugh, that have URLs" demonstrate:
-the existence of geeky projects
-my relationship to the people doing those projects
-my judgement that those projects are interesting

So you could say that it is a list defining a hierarchy, ie things that made it into Hugh's list, and things that did not make it into Hugh's list (which, among other things, includes: people hugh does not know, projects that are not geeky, and projects with no URLs). If you want to write that list sideways, or as a tag cloud that's fine.

M. "Actually the apples vs rocks relationship is an interesting point of comparison. In the book Stone Soup an impoverished town gets together and makes a yummy pot of soup by starting with one stone in a pot of boiling water and saying things like " Wow this stone would really taste a lot better if we added an apple. Does anyone have an apple they could give us?". Without the stone there would be no apple in the soup, so it doesn't really matter which one is better it matters how they are related to each other."

H. What I don't understand is how those patriarchal, merit-based jerks from that village decided, arbitrarily, that they "tasting better" should somehow get preference over "tasting worse." What's wrong with tasting worse? It's just so typical. I mean what kind of exclusionary society are they trying to build? That's just so ... so ... tasteist.

M. "I could honestly conceive of the Montreal progressive community as a pot of boiling water filled with many ingredients. They combine to produce our current community. But the value of that community is definitely not comprehensible on the basis of individual merit."

H. Every recipe that I have ever seen has a list of ingredients. Chosen for their contribution to the overall whole of the final product. For a list of ingredients (geeky projects) that contribute to Hugh thinking that he knows some people doing interesting geeky things in Montreal, refer to step 1.

M. "Please don't think I hold you personally responsible for all lists or think your list making was an exercise in genitally inspired madness."

H. Unless people make personal attacks (say about the size of my URL) I don't take things personally. I take them as what they are: questioning of something I have thought or written about, which means I can waste hours defending them, to what purpose, I can never really tell.

M. "It gave us something fun to debate and to gnaw over, and I was making my list all girls to show how divisive list-making can be, and to implicate myself and my gender as part of the problem as well."

H. The important thing is how you name your list.