A 6/2 WELCOME TO REC.PONDS :-)

Welcome to rec.ponds!

We are still here, despite the noise of attack posts.
I
Post any problem you may be having under another header.
We have a lot of talented and knowledgeable people who post
here and they can solve just about any problem.

If you get a rude answer to your post, sorry, but it part of
our ongoing problem. Just ignore it.
Someone will post a rational response to your question.
Many of us have filtered out the problem posters. Most
newsgroup readers have a way to do that.

Here is a Pond 101 page for new pond keepers ~
http://hometown.aol.com/ka30p/myhomepage/garden.html


kathy :-)
www.blogfromthebog.com
this week ~ purple loosestrife

kathy wrote:
Welcome to rec.ponds!

We are still here, despite the noise of attack posts.

Doing what exactly?

I
Post any problem you may be having under another header.
We have a lot of talented and knowledgeable people who post
here and they can solve just about any problem.

Ok here is one, how can youstop Carol from bringing her stinking war to
rec.ponds?


If you get a rude answer to your post, sorry, but it part of
our ongoing problem. Just ignore it.

Not really, The way I deal with a NG with a non-solvable problem is to
find another NG. The problem here in rec.ponds create a waste of
bandwidth ands extra work, the lasty 500 headers, is 90% off topics
posts.


Someone will post a rational response to your question.

All I see is wise crack responses.

Many of us have filtered out the problem posters. Most
newsgroup readers have a way to do that.

but why bother? How many on topic post you had today?
less tham 20.

How many Jabriol/Carol topics? today alone over 65.
not worth being here.
I understand Talk.Origins have blocked all crossposting from here. and
have blocklisted Shared-Secrets.com for their inability to avoid the
NYM shifting of one of their users.

bye.

Welcome to rec.ponds!


We are still here, despite the noise of attack posts.
I
Post any problem you may be having under another header.
We have a lot of talented and knowledgeable people who post
here and they can solve just about any problem.


If you get a rude answer to your post, sorry, but it part of
our ongoing problem. Just ignore it.
Someone will post a rational response to your question.
Many of us have filtered out the problem posters. Most
newsgroup readers have a way to do that.


Here is a Pond 101 page for new pond keepers ~
http://hometown.aol.com/ka30p/=ADmyhomepage/garden.html


kathy :-)=20
www.blogfromthebog.com=20
this week ~ purple loosestrife

Welcome to rec.ponds!

We are still here, despite the noise of attack posts.

Post any problem you may be having under another header.
We have a lot of talented and knowledgeable people who post
here and they can solve just about any problem.

If you get a rude answer to your post, sorry, but it part of
our ongoing problem. Just ignore it.
Someone will post a rational response to your question.
Many of us have filtered out the problem posters. Most
newsgroup readers have a way to do that.

Here is a Pond 101 page for new pond keepers ~
http://hometown.aol.com/ka30p/myhomepage/garden.html


kathy :-)
www.blogfromthebog.com
this week ~ purple loosestrife

On 2 Jun 2005 15:55:34 -0700, wrote:

kathy wrote:
Welcome to rec.ponds!

We are still here, despite the noise of attack posts.

Doing what exactly?

I
Post any problem you may be having under another header.
We have a lot of talented and knowledgeable people who post
here and they can solve just about any problem.

Ok here is one, how can youstop Carol from bringing her stinking war to
rec.ponds?

How about you extend to others the same consideration that you want for
yourself, and not bring it to news.groups?

There's already a perfectly good group for what you want to talk about:
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. Posting the thread to news.groups is just
going to annoy people.

(And I see that my filters have failed. I thought I had killfiled
everything posted to both news.groups and alt.config - since nothing's
on-topic for both groups, anything posted to both is either spam,
trolling, or a response to the same. Yes, I know what that means about
this post... followups trimmed)

remainder snipped
--
Rob Kelk
Personal address, in ROT-13: eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz

Welcome to rec.ponds!

We are still here, despite the noise of attack posts.
I
Post any problem you may be having under another header.
We have a lot of talented and knowledgeable people who post
here and they can solve just about any problem.

If you get a rude answer to your post, sorry, but it part of
our ongoing problem. Just ignore it.
Someone will post a rational response to your question.
Many of us have filtered out the problem posters. Most
newsgroup readers have a way to do that.

Here is a Pond 101 page for new pond keepers ~
http://hometown.aol.com/ka30p/myhomepage/garden.html


kathy :-)
www.blogfromthebog.com
this week ~ purple loosestrife

[newsgroups snecked to rec.ponds and news.groups]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:12:54 -0500, "Cracklin'" wrote:

"Courageous" wrote in message
.. .

This is not actually true.

rec.ponds could become moderated.

It's fairly easy to arrange, and not anywhere near as cumbersome as most
people think.

Moderation software even allows you to set up accept lists. These can be
as finicky as specific ip addresses of origin, or even hardware mac
addresses.

Is it possible you can do this for rec.ponds? Perhaps we can have two pond
groups - one where those who don't mind trolls can post, and one moderated?
Is that possible? Can YOU do it? Maybe this should be discussed on NANAU
(???) or one of the Usenet abuse groups (???).

Under current Big 8 group creation rules, an unmoderated group may not
be converted to moderated However, a parallel moderated group can be
created (eg. rec.ponds.moderated). The groups don't have to have
anything to do with each other, or the moderated group could permit
cross-posts from the unmoderated group but not other groups.

--
Jim Riley

X-No-Archive: Yes

Cracklin' wrote:
"Courageous" wrote in message
...

Nothing can be done.

This is not actually true.

rec.ponds could become moderated.

It's fairly easy to arrange, and not anywhere near as cumbersome as most
people think.

Moderation software even allows you to set up accept lists. These can be
as finicky as specific ip addresses of origin, or even hardware mac

addresses.

C//

=================================
Is it possible you can do this for rec.ponds? Perhaps we can have two pond
groups - one where those who don't mind trolls can post, and one moderated?
Is that possible? Can YOU do it? Maybe this should be discussed on NANAU
(???) or one of the Usenet abuse groups (???).

CR.......


NO, just EXERCISE SOME SELF CONTROL.

Trolls infest groups all the time, but in MOST groups people learn to
keep their mouths shut, the trolls are ignored, and they go away.

You, on the other hand, keep inviting your personal troll to settle in
by INSISTING on taking the bait on a daily basis, to the point that
everyone has given up on you ever getting even a glimmer of a clue of
common sense.

If you would just SHUT UP CAROL, this would have been over long ago
.... but Carol *can't* shut up, she HAS to respond because everyone
else is too stupid (in her opinion) to know which posts are
pond-related and which aren't, so she has to KEEP RESPONDING TO THE
TROLL so he will keep coming back and keep being successful in
disrupting the group.

Carol: SHUT UP. SHUT UP. SHUT UP.

All together now, everyone please tell Carol to SHUT UP!!!!! so the
troll will not continue to be successful in his disruption.


(Sorry, Fred & Mike ... but when she starts infecting NANAU & a.c and
other groups with this expletive-deleted now, it's hard to just let
her slide by yet again. Cross-posts snecked because this has no place
being discussed there, it's garden-variety trolling enabled by one of
the most persistently insistently dense (aka "stupid") [that Brit word
that Adie likes to use that I never use but have been sorely tempted
to use with
Carol-the-enabler-who-can't-shut-up-and-let-it-die-because-she's-so-sure-everyone's-too-stupid-to-recognize-a-troll-so-she-HAS-to-explain-it-to-you-8million-times.])

-- DE

[auk added because Carol is fast approaching the point of being so
insistent on her idiotic troll-enabling that she's doing more damage
than the troll himself and should be accorded international
recognition of her inability to exercise any self control while she
whimpers "victim" over & over but keeps supplying the alcoholic with a
nice bottle of cheap red.]

[oh, and FYI, proposed new alt groups are discussed in alt.config, but
rec.* groups should be handled within the rec hierarchy]

X-No-Archive: Yes

Cracklin' wrote:
"Courageous" wrote in message
...

Is it possible you can do this for rec.ponds? Perhaps we can have two

pond

groups - one where those who don't mind trolls can post, and one

moderated?

Is that possible?

Someone needs to look into newsgroup formation. I'm not sure, but I don't
think one can simply change a group to moderated status.

Keep in mind that moderation doesn't have to introduce difficulty to using
the group. Usually the way it works is that newcomers, who want to post,
have to have several of their posts approved by one of a group of

moderators.

Once this happens, all posts are automatically approved.

C//

==============================
Yes, I'm aware of that as I sometimes posted to a moderated women's group.
The original group had an unbearable troll and a few nasty sympathizers
encouraging the troll (sound familiar?)

Is it possible Carol is finally starting to recognize her own enabling
behavior?

as we have on rec.ponds. Moderating
the NG effectively blocked the person and those "others," allowing the rest
of us to post in peace. :-))

CR.....


Nah, didn't think so .... would take more than a cluestick-or-60 to
get her to stop inviting him back every day.

It's always the fault of everyone else, always theirs to deal with,
because Carol is so sure that they're TOO STUPID to recognize a troll
on their own, so Carol has to keep telling them 8 million times over
.... but it's NEVER Carol's fault for responding to him time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time after time ......

DE wrote:
....
(Sorry, Fred & Mike ...

and, of course, rec.pond'ers who are not filtering cross-posts and are
"innocent" in all this.