On Thu, 13 Feb 1992 08:35:46 ECT Martin Raish said:
>Moderate the list.  That is the solution.  Sure, it takes
>time, but you have a better list, one that includes or
>excludes whatever you want.  I don't subscribe to very
>many non-moderated lists (in fact, I think this is the
>only one!) because they are almost always poorer -- less
>focused, more cluttered with junk, etc. -- than those
>that are moderated.
 
Moderation is sometimes  a good way of  managing an unruly list  which has has
lots of postings not dealing with the topic at hand, but it is not a good idea
in most cases.  If a list's traffic frequently diverts from the subject of the
list, it  is up to the  owner of that list  to get back on  track.  Sometimes,
listowners are lax in that area and end up with a poorly run list.  One reason
why list owners  do not monitor their  lists enough and keep reign  on them is
due to a lack of sufficient time.  If time  is so short than I fail to see how
list moderation  would help the  situation since it too  takes a lot  of time.
List moderation is a last ditch effort to  gain control of a list and to bring
it back in line with its topic.  I personally find moderated lists distasteful
because when  I post to such  lists, I do  not want someone else  censoring my
comments or  denying me the opportunity  to see comments posted  by others.  I
find most moderated lists very restricting and rarely are they useful from me.
There are several exceptions, but they are  not the norm.  I would rather have
the opportunity of  deciding for myself what to read  rather than letting some
stranger make those descisions for me.
 
    Stan Horwitz              |*|  STAN @ VM.TEMPLE.EDU
    IBM Electronic Mail       |*|  My opinions are my own and do not
    Applications Consultant   |*|  necessarily reflect those of my
    Temple University         |*|  employers or anyone else.