It seems that a recurring point being made in the discussion of a
moderated rec.ponds is who is a member of rec.ponds and the criteria
under which a person can legitimately get involved.....of course it is
Usenet and a public group and anyone can express their opinion but let's
get down to the nitty gritty:-

1. Only people who own a pond are legitimate - no, because there are
people with an interest in ponds, either to build their own at some
point in the future, or even just because they like ponds and enjoy
reading about them.

2. Only people who post regularily on rec.ponds are members - no,
rec.ponds currently has 306 subscribers. Very few of these are trolls
and very few are regular posters. Conclusion would be that the majority
are lurkers - and have a legitimate interest in ponds. Therefore are
valid members of this group.

3. Only people who have been long-term posters on rec.ponds are true
ponders - no, think of lurkers again. I myself joined up to rec.ponds in
Jan 2004.....I'm sure that there are many others like me

4. Only those who's interest is solely ponds rather than anything else
aquatic are legitimate members of rec.ponds - no, there is a cross over
in interests

5. Only those people who actually have a pond have a right to join in
any discussions on ponds - no, a non-pond owner cannot only post to find
answers to their questions but they can also make a contribution to
other pond related conversations either by asking follow up questions or
expressing an opinion

I have seen all of the above mentioned in posts regarding who and who
shouldn't participate in a moderated rec.ponds either through discussion
here on rec.ponds or as to their suitability as a proponent of an RFD
for a moderated group and maybe as to their suitability as a
moderator....just wanted to make some general points on it....

Gill

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...

SNIP

I have seen all of the above mentioned in posts regarding who and who
shouldn't participate in a moderated rec.ponds either through discussion
here on rec.ponds or as to their suitability as a proponent of an RFD for
a moderated group and maybe as to their suitability as a moderator....just
wanted to make some general points on it....
=======================
Anyone can participate. Even the trolls on a mission to destroy this group
to punish everyone are participating. How can anyone stop them if they
wanted to? We couldn't even stop the abuse and trolling from other regular
rec.ponders. If you were lurking you know this.

A few points from another point of view. Of those 300 "members" of this
group (I doubt we have that many lurkers) those who only lurk "contribute
nothing" and "contributed nothing" in the past. But when something like
this comes up, they suddenly appear, shouting among the loudest and waving
their hands in the air to be heard. There was recently a discussion on
another non-fish non-pond Forum a few months ago that actually divided the
Forum into two distinct groups. For a Forum or NG to prosper and thrive,
people have to participate and not only when a problem comes up. There's
nothing wrong with lurking as such, but in this case any Tom, Dick or Harry
Troll can come forth and claim to be a lurker and grab a place as a
moderator.

If all someone did in the past was lurk, and not be an active participant,
not offer any advice or even an opinion, it makes me suspicious when and if
they suddenly appear from the shadows and offer to be a moderator or offer
endless suggestions......
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:01:05 +0000, Gill Passman wrote:

[...]
I have seen all of the above mentioned in posts regarding who and who
shouldn't participate in a moderated rec.ponds either through discussion
here on rec.ponds or as to their suitability as a proponent of an RFD
for a moderated group and maybe as to their suitability as a
moderator....just wanted to make some general points on it....

Thank you for raising this. I may have made some unclear comments about
this myself and appreciate this opportunity to clarify. I think I may have
dismissed some people's comments by suggesting that they do not own ponds.
Of course, owning a pond is not necessarily a good measure of whether a
person has a sincere interest in the topic of rec.ponds. It is obviously
possible that a person with a sincere interest might not own a pond and
you, yourself, are a good illustration of this.

In order to be a moderator, since this is a position of trust, it would be
best if this sincere interest were demonstrable to others. It is also good
if a moderator is a long-time poster so that people have a sense of who the
moderator is. For example, someone who has only posted here for a month
and never said anything about ponds is not good moderator material.

However, as far as participating in the RFD, anyone with an opinion on the
proposal may share it. As long as it is not a personal attack or some
other violation of news.groups.proposals' charter, it will appear. The
poster need not have a pond, an interest in ponds or even know how to spell
"pond". Comments on the proposal will be judged on their own merits. A
good argument for creating the group will be a good argument no matter who
makes it. Similarly, arguments against creating the group are not judged
by the arguer.

--
Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:01:05 +0000, Gill Passman wrote:

[...]
I have seen all of the above mentioned in posts regarding who and who
shouldn't participate in a moderated rec.ponds either through discussion
here on rec.ponds or as to their suitability as a proponent of an RFD
for a moderated group and maybe as to their suitability as a
moderator....just wanted to make some general points on it....
------------
Thank you for raising this. I may have made some unclear comments about
this myself and appreciate this opportunity to clarify. I think I may
have
dismissed some people's comments by suggesting that they do not own ponds.

Which means they do not have the 1st hand experience of those who do have
ponds and had them for awhile - or at least through several seasons.

Of course, owning a pond is not necessarily a good measure of whether a
person has a sincere interest in the topic of rec.ponds. It is obviously
possible that a person with a sincere interest might not own a pond and
you, yourself, are a good illustration of this.

In order to be a moderator, since this is a position of trust, it would be
best if this sincere interest were demonstrable to others. It is also
good
if a moderator is a long-time poster so that people have a sense of who
the
moderator is. For example, someone who has only posted here for a month
and never said anything about ponds is not good moderator material.

Here I agree. Another poor choice in my opinion is someone who comes forth
claiming to be a lurker but never contributed anything to the group BEFORE.
They may or may not even have a pond or 1st hand experience. They may even
be one of the many trolls "on-a-mission". How would anyone know? Very few
regulars are participating at this point. After what I've seen on this group
and the aquaria groups in the past 2 years I'm very suspicious of the
motives and agenda of any lurkers who suddenly appear out of nowhere.

However, as far as participating in the RFD, anyone with an opinion on the
proposal may share it. As long as it is not a personal attack or some
other violation of news.groups.proposals' charter, it will appear. The
poster need not have a pond, an interest in ponds or even know how to
spell
"pond". Comments on the proposal will be judged on their own merits. A
good argument for creating the group will be a good argument no matter who
makes it. Similarly, arguments against creating the group are not judged
by the arguer.

All anyone need do is take a look at this group's messages for the past year
and there's no contest.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Zëbulon wrote:


Which means they do not have the 1st hand experience of those who do
have ponds and had them for awhile - or at least through several seasons.

The point was a generic one and not about personalities, individuals or
indeed myself....You also assume that I have never owned a pond....which
in fact if you read through the archives you will see is not true albeit
a disasterous attempt....but that is another matter - perhaps on a
moderated group I would share my bad experience as a way not to do
it....maybe years after I made my original post on how to do it
correctly I will then repost the question and get advice and not
abuse....but as I said - this is a generic post...not about me at all....



Here I agree. Another poor choice in my opinion is someone who comes
forth claiming to be a lurker but never contributed anything to the
group BEFORE.

Many a lurker might be deterred from posting because of what was/is
happening on rec.ponds....this post was to provoke thought and
discussion - which I believe is part of the discussion process - it is
not about individuals....

They may or may not even have a pond or 1st hand
experience. They may even be one of the many trolls "on-a-mission". How
would anyone know? Very few regulars are participating at this point.
After what I've seen on this group and the aquaria groups in the past 2
years I'm very suspicious of the motives and agenda of any lurkers who
suddenly appear out of nowhere.

The only motive of mine is to see a rec.ponds where I can start to learn
and ask questions again without getting abuse or anyone who responds to
me getting abuse....but again this is personalising this - accusing
someone who wants to see a functioning rec.ponds again of being a troll
is not constructive....



All anyone need do is take a look at this group's messages for the past
year and there's no contest.

The assumption that just because someone posts at high volume means they
are the only ones qualified or interested in taking part in this
discussion is not valid...exactly the point I was trying to make.....

Gill

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:33:17 +0000, Gill Passman
wrote:

Zëbulon wrote:


Which means they do not have the 1st hand experience of those who do
have ponds and had them for awhile - or at least through several seasons.

The point was a generic one and not about personalities, individuals or
indeed myself....You also assume that I have never owned a pond....which
in fact if you read through the archives you will see is not true albeit
a disasterous attempt....but that is another matter - perhaps on a
moderated group I would share my bad experience as a way not to do
it....maybe years after I made my original post on how to do it
correctly I will then repost the question and get advice and not
abuse....but as I said - this is a generic post...not about me at all....



Here I agree. Another poor choice in my opinion is someone who comes
forth claiming to be a lurker but never contributed anything to the
group BEFORE.

Many a lurker might be deterred from posting because of what was/is
happening on rec.ponds....this post was to provoke thought and
discussion - which I believe is part of the discussion process - it is
not about individuals....

This is so true. Why post if there is aresident inhouse know it all
that gives out inferi9or info, or that willcome down on the,m for
taking away the so called knowedge one person thinks they possess. Who
in their right mind would have posted to rec.ponds over tha last few
years anyhow. There are just too many other places toget info if they
needed it and not suffer through a certain tennesee'ns jihad.

They may or may not even have a pond or 1st hand
experience. They may even be one of the many trolls "on-a-mission". How
would anyone know? Very few regulars are participating at this point.
After what I've seen on this group and the aquaria groups in the past 2
years I'm very suspicious of the motives and agenda of any lurkers who
suddenly appear out of nowhere.

Experieince means not a thing in lots of cases. There are lots of
obook smart jerks who canp;t produce and lots of producers thats not
capable of reading. Thenthere is a whole mix of those that are
inbetween, but its certainly not relevant if that is a determininig
ffactor if they know what they are talking about now is it? Atrocites
in this group has kept the vast majority of posters and even lurkers
form participating here......and at this stage of the game I can not
blame them for not jumping up and saying who they are.......There is a
ton of folks that used to be here..Benign Vanilla, Rich Toy Box,
CrashJ, Canadian Cray and a ton more who I am not gong to go through
the trouble of listing since it is not of any value or need.

The only motive of mine is to see a rec.ponds where I can start to learn
and ask questions again without getting abuse or anyone who responds to
me getting abuse....but again this is personalising this - accusing
someone who wants to see a functioning rec.ponds again of being a troll
is not constructive....



All anyone need do is take a look at this group's messages for the past
year and there's no contest.

The assumption that just because someone posts at high volume means they
are the only ones qualified or interested in taking part in this
discussion is not valid...exactly the point I was trying to make.....

The high post count is an all too seen thng in web based forums where
posts are tallied and posted next to a users name. Folks being the
sheep that they are for the most part, automatically assume a high
post count makes that person a real guru on the topics at hand. It
could not be further than thr truth., How many posts would Carol of
had if this was a web based forum........I shudder to think and can't
count that high.......The web based forums are full of this fallacy.
So thinking like this if the head koi judge was to suddenly appear and
make a post it would be considered invaluable as he only has 1 post
to his / her credit. Volumne means nothing in a forum.Its quality not
quanity that counts. Some posters no matter what even if they have
good quality their history is going to work against them no matter
what they may now.......and I am afraid one or two folks here are
suffereing from that feeling already ;-)

Gill



-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

"Tristan" wrote in message
...
Some posters no matter what even if they have
good quality their history is going to work against them no matter
what they may now.......and I am afraid one or two folks here are
suffereing from that feeling already ;-)
==================
Like this post of yours Roy? Here you're impersonating/frogging a
legitimate poster named Ed Alston. There's quite an archive of your past
messages on this group. Your obscene words xxxx by myself. Do you think
anyone forgot how you helped destroy this group?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Rather"
Newsgroups:
rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc,rec.aquaria.freshwater .goldfish,alt.aquaria,rec.ponds,alt.usenet.kooks,a lt.music.neil-young,rec.gardens
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: Why Jake or is it Millie or is it just old cocksucker Ed Alston at



Hey Ed Alston...do you also wear panties and a dress when you go by
the name of Millie? I bet you do your wife and momma proud! You old
xxxxsucker you!

Now I am out of here, I do not have time to play with you jerkoffs
that are just small potatoes, who will never amount to anything other
than dog shit between the toes of Carol Gulley......

I'll drop in from time to time just to keep things the way I left
them! hahahahahaha ya fxxking looser, so don't get too comfy!
You can reach -Ed Alston at


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Now this has been one interesting take on who is who and what in
regards to credibility on this or any forum in all reality, and it is
true to the words posted in every way. Sure knoclks out a lot of what
some folks wish would be used to enable a say so or to be taken in
as a bona fide ponder. Well not really a lot of folks, mainly one or
two at most! ;-)

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:01:05 +0000, Gill Passman
wrote:

It seems that a recurring point being made in the discussion of a
moderated rec.ponds is who is a member of rec.ponds and the criteria
under which a person can legitimately get involved.....of course it is
Usenet and a public group and anyone can express their opinion but let's
get down to the nitty gritty:-

1. Only people who own a pond are legitimate - no, because there are
people with an interest in ponds, either to build their own at some
point in the future, or even just because they like ponds and enjoy
reading about them.


My aunt is not anywhere near capable of maintaining a pond or even a
water feature like a half barrel yet she has an interest in them and
knows quite a lot about ponds.......but she will never own one at this
stage of her life. What purpose would it be to shot out foplks like
this on the whim of one persons desires.....Lurkers are just as much a
part of rp as regular posters are.

2. Only people who post regularily on rec.ponds are members - no,
rec.ponds currently has 306 subscribers. Very few of these are trolls
and very few are regular posters. Conclusion would be that the majority
are lurkers - and have a legitimate interest in ponds. Therefore are
valid members of this group.

Be hard to do especially if some are military, and out of country.
Lots of this typical scenerio on web based forums....Sure would be a
sin to shut them out and say they are not true ponders like one or two
folks here would do if it made things tilt to their ideals. They have
every right as do folks who are totally rapped up in this forum are.

3. Only people who have been long-term posters on rec.ponds are true
ponders - no, think of lurkers again. I myself joined up to rec.ponds in
Jan 2004.....I'm sure that there are many others like me

Just what constitutes a ong time poster is a joke. A person can make
one post yesterday that has more merit than some folks continuous
trends of posting that never really say a thing, and only post things
like "me too"

4. Only those who's interest is solely ponds rather than anything else
aquatic are legitimate members of rec.ponds - no, there is a cross over
in interests

Well there is a cross over in interests and things that are related
thats for sure. I have a totla of 5 large natural pinds right now. All
but one of them, the newest 3.5 acre poind is stocked with koi or
goldfish. I also have a total of 11 preforms of 165 gal or more plus
numerous water features such as half whiskey barrels or old wash tubs
etc out and around the house here. None of the preforms or water
features has a gold fish or koi in them but they are chuck full of
tropical fish.......so therefore my preforms with tropicals fall into
this rec ponds forum as well as a preform or liner pond with koi
does. It is a perfect example of a related on topic cross over.
HOWEVER, my labrador retreiver that likes to swim in my poind and
chase frogs is not an ON TOPIC cross over and should not be allowed.
What does a dog have to do with being on topic....NOTHING....it just
happens to be a water loving dog that parks its ass nthe owners pond,
thats all. So alaong this concept, then my posts of my son and his RC
boat inour natural pond chasing koi when they come up to feed would
be a on topic post, even though it is as far off topica as yu can get.
You wanna hear about dogs spashing in the pind go create a nother
group. You wanna hear about pretty flowers in a pond, yur in the right
place. I am sure there is a few here that will dissagree with that
mainly due to who they are and who I am referencing......of couirse al
us "long term posters" of rp knows who these references are to and
about but there is no need to expound.

5. Only those people who actually have a pond have a right to join in
any discussions on ponds - no, a non-pond owner cannot only post to find
answers to their questions but they can also make a contribution to
other pond related conversations either by asking follow up questions or
expressing an opinion


What defines a pind, a mud hole or a mud puddle. I find it hard to
conceive a 90 gal preform a a "pond" yet they are titled as ponds.
Same for half barrel water features.......or a 3 gal ceramic bowl on a
patio table with a miniature helvola lily and a ryunkin in it. But
none the less its still more related to a poind and proper topics than
a dog in pond is, and why chastise or hold a person without any room
(Jabbers is a perfect example) of not having space to build a 4000
gaol pond. Its the thought or intent and interest that matters.

I have seen all of the above mentioned in posts regarding who and who
shouldn't participate in a moderated rec.ponds either through discussion
here on rec.ponds or as to their suitability as a proponent of an RFD
for a moderated group and maybe as to their suitability as a
moderator....just wanted to make some general points on it....

There does seem to be a few proponents that believe if a person does
not have a "proper" pond they are not entitled to have a say so.
Leave the dogs out, no problem with bull frogs, and flowers and
fish.....size does not matter nor does quanity oif fish or quality of
fish, be it wally world specials of 3 for $5 or your life savings
spent n that one GC koi hopefull, a $2.00 fish bowl or a $50,000 koi
pond, a formal or informal pond, a pond with fish or no fish and just
plants.......

Gill



-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

Tristan wrote:



None of the preforms or water
features has a gold fish or koi in them but they are chuck full of
tropical fish.......so therefore my preforms with tropicals fall into
this rec ponds forum as well as a preform or liner pond with koi
does. It is a perfect example of a related on topic cross over.
HOWEVER, my labrador retreiver that likes to swim in my poind and
chase frogs is not an ON TOPIC cross over and should not be allowed.
What does a dog have to do with being on topic....NOTHING....it just
happens to be a water loving dog that parks its ass nthe owners pond,
thats all. So alaong this concept, then my posts of my son and his RC
boat inour natural pond chasing koi when they come up to feed would
be a on topic post, even though it is as far off topica as yu can get.

This of course is where the definition of acceptable and unacceptable
off-topic posts treads a fine line. I quite enjoyed the "swimming dog"
post and would almost certainly also enjoy a post about "koi and a boat"
- here it comes down to personal preferences and
personalities....afterall these type of "off-topic" posts can easily be
skimmed over by those not interested but enjoyed by those who like a bit
of "banter" as well as the serious stuff (sorry if banter is an English
phrase - I'll translate if requested) - and on a happy group this can
certainly be accommodated....

Gill

This of course is where the definition of acceptable and unacceptable
off-topic posts treads a fine line. I quite enjoyed the "swimming dog"
post and would almost certainly also enjoy a post about "koi and a boat"
- here it comes down to personal preferences and
personalities....afterall these type of "off-topic" posts can easily be
skimmed over by those not interested but enjoyed by those who like a bit
of "banter" as well as the serious stuff (sorry if banter is an English
phrase - I'll translate if requested) - and on a happy group this can
certainly be accommodated....
Gill

Exactly. RPM will encourage interesting banter. :-) And as long as the dog
isn't cussing out, demeaning & insulting the frogs, it will pass. ~ jan