The discussion about moderation is a valid one, and bound to be
shortlived. The goal of that discussion is to get back to virology and
preferentially attract more virologists to this newsgroup. However if the
majority of the newsgroup readers is against moderation that should be
known. Sofar I get the impression that most posters, like myself, would
support at least some form of moderation. If there is more or less general
agreement probably a proposal as to what moderation should entail will be
formulated and discussed, after which we can go back to the issue at hand,
I for one am happy that this discussion has gotten input from people that
infrequently post here, but apparently do follow the discussions (both on
moderation and, one would hope, on virology).
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960311094249.24568B-100000 at ava.bcc.orst.edu>,
porterk at AVA.BCC.ORST.EDU (Karen Porter) wrote:
> Has anyone noticed that the quantity of postings about moderation
> being needed are beginning to rival that of the nonvirology postings which
> began the moderation discussion?
>> If there are people interested in being moderators please e-mail each
> other privately. Let's stop talking about moderation and either do it or
> drop the subject and get back to virology.
>> Just my two cents.
>> Karen Martin
> Oregon State University
> Molecular and Cellular Biology