Peter: I generally agree with your comments. In my opinion, the postings would have to be in very
bad taste to warrant moderation of a news group.
Quite frankly, this newsgroup does not have a reputation of being a place to obtain any significant
exchange of information on toxicology. The mercury postings and the question of moderation are the
most significant interest I've seen on it in the month or so that I've been reading it.
To me this unfortunate, because I'm looking for a forum for active discussion of tox issues, for
purposes of professional growth and to make contacts on issues which are of interest me. I would
like to see this newsgroup grow significantly in visibility and use, and then perhaps branch off into
more specialized groups.
I'm not enthusiastic about moderating the mailing list, at least at this point. It seems unnecessary
until it becomes a problem.
bell at morpheus.cis.yale.edu (Peter Bell) wrote:
>In article <199601031549.JAA36009 at mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> rellim at MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU (Chuck Miller) writes:
>>>>Now is the time to voice your opinion if you are strongly for or against
>>moderation. Please post your opinions to the group (toxicol at net.bio.net or
>>toxicol at daresbury.ac.uk, depending on your location in the world) rather
>>than to me. Guidelines for what constitutes an "appropriate" message have
>>been laid out by BIOSCI/BIONET. I will follow these guidelines in
>>I'm confused. You want opinions to go to the group, which hereabouts is
>bionet.toxicology, but then give what look to be two addresses for
>>Are you proposing to moderate the group bionet.toxicology, or to moderate
>a mailing list? My reaction to the former is "no, please," and to the
>latter is "absolutely. Mailing lists should be moderated."
>>>Basically - any posting of even remote toxicological interest will be
>>posted. Moderation will only be used to sensor the "get rich quick" and
>>other junk messages.
>>Could you give an example of "other junk messages?" What I'm curious
>about is whether the recent debate on mercury that came to visit from
>sci.med.dentistry would be "remotely toxicologically interesting" in your
>opinion, or would be filtered. I ask because that seems to've been the
>only recent and relatively high-volume conversation on the group.
>>Granted, it was (for me) a pointless flamewar. But if my specialty
>happened to be mercury, I'd have been interested in it from the
>perspective of what people in the universe think on the topic, as I
>occasionally am interested by the discussions of algal food supplements
>and their potential toxicity over on rec.food.veg.
>>Additionally, I'd say it was relevant to bionet.toxicology, as the folk
>were presumably hoping to solicit a professional opinion.
>>Hence, I'm curious if that would've been a conversation you'd have left
>out, or if there has been spam that's been cancelled on Usenet but has
>made it onto mailing lists, and hence is visible to you but not to me.
>bell at minerva.cis.yale.edu | http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~bell/bell.html>Boil up a batch of shrimp: everyone for miles is beating down your door.
>Boil up a batch of roaches: you're undergoing an extensive psychological
>evaluation. -- ken at seefried.com