re Moderation ("in all things"!)(and of course a Moderated group): I'm
for it, but do not know much about how one implements this sort of
thing. I wonder also (as an alternative) if an automatic limit to
cross-posting could be implemented--e.g. at most 1 or 2 besides the
primary group? This would not screen out cijadra/mentifex/ccheng, but
it would screen out the vast flood of irresponsible postings from the
vast number of sources opened up by unlimited cross-posting, free up
some space for neuroscinece discussion, and allow us to deal with our
own resident kooks "privately" (e.g. by direct replies or simply by
extinction--i.e. ignoring).
F. LeFever
In <6v60b4$bsp at news.acns.nwu.edu> nut at bolt.com writes:
>>In article <6v1k8f$86n at sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>>$$In <6us7dq$l3q at dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> flefever at ix.netcom.com(F.
>$$Frank LeFever) writes:
>$$
>$$I respectfully suggest that EVERYONE interested in clearing this
>$$garbage away so that there is at least some ROOM for neuroscience
>$$discussion (we don't know if there are any serious discussants left)
>>>Frank,
> Maybe its *really* time to move to the moderated lists. The
last time
>there was an RFD for bionet.neuroscience.moderated, all talk died down
despite
>an obvious evinced need for b.n.m - simply because there was no single
person
>to take up the initiative for moderatorship. Maybe time has made the
need for
>this initiative stronger.
>>Madhusudan Natarajan
>m-natarajan at nwu.edu
