"Snooze" wrote in message
et...
We find ourselves in a rather interesting situation. Those of us that are
tired of the state that rec.ponds is currently in, can create a new
newsgroup, rec.ponds.moderated, and abandon rec.ponds.

Abandoning rec.ponds is an assumption on your part, not mine. If
rec.ponds.moderated is approved, I intend to continue reading and
occasionally posting to rec.ponds, if for no other reason than alerting
newbies to the existence of a pond group where they can interact with other
ponders without being flamed or forged.

I think that also
puts us in an interesting cross roads. Should we abandon rec.ponds, we
won't really care if Carol and her army of clones fights all day here and
in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn. Or the army of trolls and their associated
clones.

rec.ponds will continue to exist whatever happens with rec.ponds.moderated.
I know of no plans to get it delisted, or whatever the appropriate term is.

Knowing there tools to cause havoc in a moderated newsgroup, by letting
Carol follow come there, her enemies will too. But since I'm not a
moderator, I don't set policy, I'm just voicing my 2 cents.

If I've said this once, I've said it a gadzillion times, moderation should
be done by content, and most if not all regular rec.ponders agree. That
means anyone can post, as long as they post within certain reasonable
guidelines, it doesn't matter what they've done in the past on rec.ponds or
any other newsgroup. Moderation policy will be spelled out in the RFD. If
you don't like the proposed moderation policies, suggest revisions. That's
how a RFD works.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003