Irene Waters  wrote: 
 >"Brian Edmonds"  wrote 
 >> "Irene c"  writes: 
 >> > (Aside: If anyone's wondering, I'm not prepared to propose a moderated 
 >> > misc.invest.bonds to deal with this.) 
 >> 
 >> Why not?  A moderated group using aggressive address whitelisting can be 
 >> almost entirely transparent to the group's real users, while reliably 
 >> blocking almost all hit and run promoters.  I don't know how bad the 
 >> problems are in misc.invest, however, so if they're more of a low level 
 >> annoyance then going unmoderated may well be adequate. 
  
 >I guess I wasn't clear with my other comments on this. 
  
 >I am as wide open to a moderated newsgroup as I am an unmoderated one. The 
 >trick with the moderated one is finding a willing and able moderator. 
  
 Also, to find a moderation site, to find moderation software, come 
 up with moderation policy, etc.  It's a fair bit more preparation 
 to be a proponent for a moderated group.  Irene is reasonably 
 hesitant on the matter. 
  
 ru 
  
 -- 
 My standard proposals rant: 
 Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic 
 is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. 
 Usenet popularity is the primary consideration. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)