"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...
Gail Futoran wrote:

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.

Agreed....it also means that a poster needs to use a valid email
address....I guess if they make a contraversial post with a fake address
then the post would just remain removed - and so it should be.

I use an invalid email address to post. It's obvious to any individual what
they need to do to send me email, but is that something we ought to be
asking moderators to do? I don't know the answer. I do know that if I
can't use a munged (I think that's the term) email addy when posting online
to minimize spam in my inbox, then I'm going to have to rethink posting
online, and I'd rather not do that.

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.

Not entirely what I was saying.....I guess what I am trying to say is any
"on-topic" post can generate an intelligent discussion - I'm certainly not
saying *any* post. Personally I would prefer it if a post that
deliberately sets out to inflame is returned to the submitter to tone it
down and ask the question in a way that would generate the discussion....

Yes, that's my position, also.

even if I strongly disagree with what is being
proposed...If a post is rejected subjectively (and without giving the OP
the opportunity to resubmit in acceptable language) then it would call
into question the neutral stance of the moderators - one example would be
whether bad advice should be moderated or not -

Again, that's a topic that needs to be addressed in the RFD and discussed
until people are satisfied with the moderation guidelines.

OK there are times
when advice given is bad and this should be corrected on the newsgroup by
the posters - and moderators are also posters - and we also have to
understand that one person may feel the advice is bad but others will
have other experiences from following the same advice - healthy debate
without resorting to insults is exactly what a moderated group should be
about.

I agree. I probably have put it badly in other posts, resulting in the
erroneous charge that I was advocating moderator editing of others' posts,
but what I meant (and thought it was clear) was what you are saying.
Moderators are also posters, and if a moderator disagrees with something
someone posts, they should be able to post their opinion in a separate post.

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.

Agreed.....read this bit again after writing the above - I think we are on
the same wave length on this :-)

Probably.

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

It is good that there are people willing to dedicate their time (long
term) to this project and you all have my support in your efforts

Gill

My very tired eyes thank you.

Gail