Two Conversations?

Finally got around to creating a link list today: included every blog currently in my RSS. God I love Safari's easy RSS folder organization. Yummy. I decided to "segregate" the conversations: one list for English / academic discussions and another for design / technology discussions. Some of these, such as work/space or sbj cover both, but for the most part I would say these distinction hold up (perhaps not along everyone's interests, but certainly along what they write about). This threw up (albiet a small one) a personal ethical dilemma: is it o.k. to classify, exclude, or differentiate in the name of usability? Let me explain: I differentiated bewteen these conversation on the basis of "usability": it both makes it easier for me to find a link and for visitors to find like-minded sites (I have a few friends that have no interest reading about conditional comments for IE 6.x and a few friends who have no desire to read about the metaphysical underpinnings of J.C.I. in comparision to classical, modern and postmodern philosophy). So, in the name of others, I seperate others into groups of the same. This might seem like useless babbling, but this is the shit that keeps me up at night: the intersection between postmodern ethics of the other, web design, and rhetorical considerations of audience. And I stayed up late last night reorganizing my office, overslept, and missed two advertised sales for a Nintendo Wii.