Watching this unfold (I didn't jump in earlier as I didn't see it 'til
late in the discussion (Hurray! you probably say)) I started thinking
"what would I do if I took over a professional discussion group which
has gotten as off track as described?"
 
I would probably send to the list something like this:
 
*"This list is for discussion of xxxxxxxx .  Recently, discussion of
*this topic has ceased due to the many irrelevant postings.  As the
*warnings have been of no avail in halting the garbage, the list,
*as of now, is moderated with me as editor.
 
*Postings sent to me as editor which are of the type which has caused
*the list to deteriorate will not be sent to the list, nor will they
*receive a response; they will be deleted.
 
*When the volume of garbage declines sufficiently I will restore the
*list to it's open status.  After that, anyone who trys to restart
*the extraneous arguments will be summarily deleted from the list
*and will not be allowed to resubscribe. "
 
The above may seem drastic to some, but if you have a valuable discussion
group that is being trashed, draconian measures may be needed.  I hate
moderated lists, not because of the work, but because of the delay in
posting and restriction on discussion (the later of course depends on
the editor), but I would use it to calm down an out-of-control list
if I had to take it over.
 
Which is better, to allow the list to disintegrate to pointlessness,
or to excercise control (delete trouble makers, set people nomail for
a while, etc.)?
 
        Douglas Winship    Austin, Texas    [log in to unmask]