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]