The moderation team has been following our discussion of global
warming.


When the topic arose, we considered it (marginally) related to ponds
and let it continue. We have been pleased that the general tone of
the discussion has been civil and respectful...qualities prized by so
many in this group!


As time has gone on, the thread has taken somewhat of a life of its
own and moved more off topic. We do not want to cut the topic off
and
we do not want to have rpm become filled with discussions of global
warming.


Accordingly, we are asking those making contributions to the
discussion of global warming to add their posts to the thread now
titled 'Ponders' discussion of global warming'. Civil posts about
global warming will be moderated as usual and passed on to the
thread. Uncivil posts and posts to other global warming threads will
be returned to their senders, who may modify them and add them to the
'Ponder's discussion of global warming' thread.


Thank you all for handling a potentially flame-filled topic in a
respectful manner.


Jim Hurley
Writing as administrative moderator for the rpm moderation team

When it was originally posted, it looked like spam trying to incite
arguments to me. I'm just ignoring it.


--
Gareee
(Gary Tabar Jr.)

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:40:42 CST, "Gareee©"
wrote:

When it was originally posted, it looked like spam trying to incite
arguments to me. I'm just ignoring it.

Same here! I'm a bit surprised that so many people formerly from
rec.ponds responded.
--
Hal Middle Georgia, Zone 8
http://tinyurl.com/2fxzcb

"Hal" wrote

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:40:42 CST, "Gareee©"
wrote:

When it was originally posted, it looked like spam trying to incite
arguments to me. I'm just ignoring it.

Same here! I'm a bit surprised that so many people formerly from
rec.ponds responded.

Well, things are slow, it's that time of year, and people are bored.. LOL!

--
Gareee
(Gary Tabar Jr.)

Hal wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:40:42 CST, "Gareee©"
wrote:

When it was originally posted, it looked like spam trying to incite
arguments to me. I'm just ignoring it.

Same here! I'm a bit surprised that so many people formerly from
rec.ponds responded.

Why? I didn't help start this group to avoid argument - I did it to avoid
purely destructive posts. As far as I'm concerned (and I know my attitude
is not held by all) people can argue as long as they want as long as they
don't get abusive.
--
derek

Hi Derek,

Nice to hear from you. How are your fish doing? Our pond is cold
enough that only the mosquito fish are eating.

Jim

"Phyllis and Jim" wrote in message
...
The moderation team has been following our discussion of global
warming.


When the topic arose, we considered it (marginally) related to ponds
and let it continue. We have been pleased that the general tone of
the discussion has been civil and respectful...qualities prized by so
many in this group!


As time has gone on, the thread has taken somewhat of a life of its
own and moved more off topic. We do not want to cut the topic off
and
we do not want to have rpm become filled with discussions of global
warming.


Accordingly, we are asking those making contributions to the
discussion of global warming to add their posts to the thread now
titled 'Ponders' discussion of global warming'. Civil posts about
global warming will be moderated as usual and passed on to the
thread. Uncivil posts and posts to other global warming threads will
be returned to their senders, who may modify them and add them to the
'Ponder's discussion of global warming' thread.


Thank you all for handling a potentially flame-filled topic in a
respectful manner.


Jim Hurley
Writing as administrative moderator for the rpm moderation team


Oddly enough you decided to reject a post from the person who started it.
BTW: Peter Pan and I took the conversation to another group and had
absolutely no problem. Maybe you should relax a little and wait until the
conversation becomes an actual flame fest.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Thank you for your post about our asking folks to post about global
warming to the "Ponder's discussion of global warming' thread.

I am not sure to which post you are referring in your comment about a
rejected post. Let me provide you with some info about the steps I
took. Perhaps it will help.

The moderation team was happy about the general civil and respectful
tenor of the global warming discussion.

We noted, however, that it was generating additional OT threads. We
want to avoid having OT threads begin to fill the board and we did not
want to cut off the moved-OT thread with civil discussion that our
members were actively enjoying, so we decided to ask people to post to
just one global warming thread. Once the moderation team had decided,
I posted the 'Moderator announce:' post.

Then I initiated a new thread with the title "Ponder's discussion of
global warming".

Then I reviewed all of the posts in the moderation cue. Those about
global warming, I sent back to their authors with a reference to the
Moderator announcement and a suggestion that they resubmit their post
to the new thread.

In response to your post, I have just reviewed each of the rejected
posts to be sure they had the resubmit element. They do.

If the person who received the rejected post would like to follow up
on it, please invite them to send me a copy at , my
moderation address.

If we inadvertently rejected a civil post or if I somehow failed to
suggest that they resubmit, I would be glad to apologize to them and
would certainly want them to feel free to resubmit it to the "Ponder's
discussion..." thread.

I would be glad to hear from you directly at the
address if you would like to follow up further on you post.

Jim Hurley
Speaking for myself and not for the moderation team

When it comes to Global warming, I only ask that you ask yourself a simple
question: According to all sources who believe the GW is caused by man, they
site catastrophic storms and damages to the planets as a result of the
earth warming. Now the planet has warmed less then .5 degrees in the past
100 years: (This is where common sense comes in) If your refrigerator rose
by .5 degrees, who the food in there go bad? So why is the planet in such
peril? Believe what you want about GW, personally I think GW is nothing
more then a way for Those who control the House and Senate to raise our
taxes on some trumped up bogus man made myth,
Thanks for the thread

In article ,
"Peter Pan" wrote:

When it comes to Global warming, I only ask that you ask yourself a simple
question: According to all sources who believe the GW is caused by man, they
site catastrophic storms and damages to the planets as a result of the
earth warming. Now the planet has warmed less then .5 degrees in the past
100 years: (This is where common sense comes in) If your refrigerator rose
by .5 degrees, who the food in there go bad? So why is the planet in such
peril? Believe what you want about GW, personally I think GW is nothing
more then a way for Those who control the House and Senate to raise our
taxes on some trumped up bogus man made myth,
Thanks for the thread

I've heard a lot of things said on the many sides of this
argument....but comparing the ecosystem inside my refrigerator to the
highly complex ecosystem of our Earth is not very sensible to me and
overly simplistic.

1000 years from now, or a million it won't matter what we do or do not do at
all.. the Earth will still be here, and we most likely will not.

If you look at things in the perspective of the age of the entire planet,
global warming as we've percieved it isn;t even a blip on the radar.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:31:54 CST, "Gareee©"
wrote:

1000 years from now, or a million it won't matter what we do or do not do at
all.. the Earth will still be here, and we most likely will not.

Assuming reincarnation isn't fact. ;-)

If you look at things in the perspective of the age of the entire planet,
global warming as we've percieved it isn;t even a blip on the radar.

You're probably very right. ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

~ jan wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:31:54 CST, "Gareee©"
wrote:

1000 years from now, or a million it won't matter what we do or do not do
at all.. the Earth will still be here, and we most likely will not.

Assuming reincarnation isn't fact. ;-)

It won't help if there are no bodies to be reincarnated into - if we're
really lucky, we'll all be reincarnated as cockroaches...

--
derek

I prefer to think of it as "practicing our terra-forming techniques in
preparation for colonizing Mars".

:-)


Which might take time, but it's not that hard. The "hard part" about
making Mars habitable is not giving it an atmosphere, but giving it a
magnetic field. It is the magnetic field that shields us from cosmic
radiation (alot more so than the atmosphere).

--

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay."

Peter Pan wrote:

When it comes to Global warming, I only ask that you ask yourself a
simple question: According to all sources who believe the GW is caused by
man, they
site catastrophic storms and damages to the planets as a result of the
earth warming. Now the planet has warmed less then .5 degrees in the past
100 years: (This is where common sense comes in)

Do you know how many atomic bombs it would take to raise the temperature of
the planet by an average .5 degrees? That's (almost literally) a hell of a
lot of energy.
--
derek