"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...

So maybe we have got, through sensible discussion, to the point that in a
commercial or large lake environment maybe shooting/killing is the best
option...on a smaller scale then the sculptures, sprays, nets and fences
will be the best option but it isn't the way to go on a large scale
environment....

I think this a great example of how moderation could kill a good
discussion or how good moderation can allow this type of post to get
through and generate an intelligent conversation.....it is to be hoped
that the moderators on the proposed rec.ponds.moderated can see that even
if a post starts off as being inflammatory it is still valid....and
sometimes I can see that playing devil's advocate by taking an unpopular
stance can provoke debate and discussion....this IMO is a good
thing....and actually the point that the OP wanted to prove/discuss/bring
out into the open...

I look forward to intelligent posts on this subject such as we are now
getting from all concerned....it gives me hope that this can continue....

Gill

There should be an option for moderators to return a submitted post to the
OP with the suggestion that inflammatory or abusive language be removed and
the post resubmitted.

If you use the argument that *any* post can contain a useful gem that some
reasonable person down the line will help to morph into useful information,
then we might as well have no moderation whatsoever.

On the other hand, good moderation should actually encourage discussion,
because then people will feel confident that they can discuss what interests
them - even if their views are seen as silly or impractical by some -
without being personally attacked, for no reason other than that the
attacker knows he/she can get away with it - in an unmoderated group.

That's just my opinion, and is something that should be brought up, both pro
and con, during the RFD.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003