The thing is that with a membership without those causing trouble and
stirring things up in an aggressive manner, there is very little to do. It
would be a good idea, and I have mentioned it before, for this newsgroup
to be moderated and I am quite certain that certain antagonistic members
would soon be banned or told to control their contributions.

Mike

Easier said than done. I moderated a group once. The problem is always where
to draw the line. Exchanges can get heated but still civilised. However, it
is easy with the English language to imply a subtle slur or insult to
someone. If all such posts were deleted then there would be complaints the
moderation was too strict and people abandon the group. The group then dies.
However, letting such post through means the person on the receiving end
then typically replies with a little less subtlety and the exchange
degenerates into a slanging match with a dispute over who started it. A
moderators job is an impossible one. Wherever you draw the line people are
not happy.

There is a group here in France that is so heavily moderated that most
members have left. The group boasts over 9000 members but in reality there
are less than 50 active. The rest have had so many posts deleted they have
given up on the group (me included!) - and I don't even insult anyone!

David.