RFD: rec.ponds.moderated moderated

Vorian_ Atreides wrote:
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:03:31 -0500, Vorian_ Atreides
wrote:

If it is not important, why do you need a moderated group?

It isn't important to find the root of the problem to recognize that there
is a problem.


So take, take the aspirin. If it a migraine, it will go away, but if it
is a brain tumor, prepare to die.

Then why mention private forums, if they are not relevant?

We can change it, is that what you're suggesting? This is a request for
discussion, after all.

Please do.


Explain.

Their scope is different than ours. The uk group never faces, for example,
alligators in their ponds.


Neither do people in most places of the world, are you suggesting
rec.ponds is regional group? If that is the case, then a group should
be created in the US. Hierarchy.

Not a valid point.

Others would disagree.

And these are?

Your suggestions, I hope.

It won't be posted. Jayne will make sure it won't


Such as the inability to contact the ISP of just two trolls

I disagree (among other things) that this is the work of just two trolls.


Evidence?

Although I frequent a few Google groups including rec.ponds; The Usenet
forum in my opinion is a has been format that allows out of control
flaming that does not happen in the better moderated forums elsewhere
that I frequent or in some case have been invited to moderate. I do not
think until a true change of attitude happens with these groups that
problems will cease to exist. That includes the flaming of others that
is extremely prevalent in the Usenet when someone bursts the bubbles of
users and so called moderators with newer, well researched information
backed by studies. This all goes on while Flamers and hypocrites in
these groups promote sites that may or may not serve the readers and
moderators allow discussions about approved devices.
This has happened in even so called moderated groups such as Freshwater
Aquarium.

Carl