I've spent several more hours doing research.
Here is a ( brief?) update. (It turned out longer than I
intended. Please try to read through all of it. I've repeated a lot
of those things that are critical.)

The main control group (Big-8 Usenet org) that actually creates
new groups has recently changed their methods. There is no longer
any public voting (which allowed all kinds of fraud and abuse.)
This is a __very__ good thing, which will be a definite plus in
getting a moderated group going..

Basicly, 4 things need to happen.

1. First, publicize the fact that a new moderated group may be
formed if there is enough interest. We need to spred the word to
former rec. ponders. Their positive imput will be very helpful (see
step 3 below.)

2. An RFD (request for discussion) has to be written and
submitted. This should also include a FAQ giving all necessary
reasons and details. This __must__ also include a list of
persons who agree to act as moderators.

3. The Big-8 Usenet organization puts the FAQ and RFD on a
newly created newsgroup and opens it up for discussion.
The new group is " news.groups.proposals ". It is
moderated and was just created on 11-18-06. Your news provider
may/probably does not carry it yet. Please ask them to carry it.
All discussion pro/con __must__ take place on that group. After
your news provider starts to carry it, you will need to subscribe to
it. And let former rec.ponders know about it. Their imput will be
a huge help in getting the Big-8 group to authorize creation.

This new group (news.groups.proposals) is run by and
moderated by the big-8, and they will filter out all posts that come
from trolls, have flames or abusive language, or invalid email
addresses. They are VERY familiar with the more well-known usenet
trolls, and will filter them out. What gets through should be an
honest picture of the desire to have a new rec.ponds.moderated group.

4. After a length of time, the Big-8 Board will review all the
discussion and will vote on whether to allow the creation of a new
rec.ponds.moderated group..
(There is no longer a public CFV -call for vote--, and that will
stop the trolls from "stuffing the ballot box". A VERY good thing.)


Until recently the Big-8 had a different method of creating
groups, and it tended to favor fraud and abuse. It also had voting
rules that made many honest people reluctant to vote in favor of a
new group. ALL THAT HAS NOW CHANGED. The voting is now internal,
amongst the members of the Big-8 board.

What need to be done now?

1. I will be spending the next 5-7 days learning more about all
the details. I'll report back here occassionally with updates.

2. First and foremost, we need to have a group of long-term,
trusted, genuine rec. ponders who will consider acting as moderators.
These persons will have a lot of power in judging which posts go
through, which need editing, and which get thrown out.
IF YOU ARE A RECOGNIZED, WELL-KNOWN, GENUINE, LONG-TERM PONDER,
WILL YOU CONSIDER HELPING OUT? No firm commitments are needed until
all the facts & details are worked out and ready for submission.

3. I need to do more research on the various software programs
that act as robo-moderators. These programs do the first interception
of all posts and filter out the obvious trolls, junk, abuse,
off-topic, cross-posted, etc. posts. A robo-moderator program will
also intercept and kill any troll who decides to flood the moderators
with hundreds or thousands of posts. This will greatly reduce the
workload for the moderators.

I have a lot of work to do in the coming week, or more. All I
need to know is,...do I have the support of genuine rec.ponders who
truly love the subject of this group, and want to see it survive?

Its true that there is already a moderated group on google, but
I don't care for google groups. I would much prefer a usenet group.
Also, the google group has aquaria posts, and goes well beyond the
original intended focus of the rec.ponds group.

As a last note, I would be willing to act as a co-moderator, but
in truth I'm not a good choice. I am an unknown, and loyal
rec.ponders can't be sure of my motives, or know what I might do as a
moderator.
My intentions are very honest and sincere. But most, if not
all, co-moderators need to be recognized, loyal, long-term, neutral
ponders who can be trusted to make judgements on what goes through and
what gets blocked. I want to help, and will help if allowed, but I'm
not a good choice, at least not at this time. Simply because you
really don't know me or my track record..

Anyways, I'll stop for now.

I'm going back to do more research. But I need to hear feedback
from the people who love the subject of this group.

Is there support for this project? Can we get a group of
potential co-moderators who would be willing to help out (provided
that things are set up so that they don't get swamped with work.)
At this point, I think that a robo-moderator, plus 3-4-5 co-moderators
should be sufficient to spred the workload out.)

I'll be checking back to see what the reaction is to this post.
If there is no support, then I'll drop the project and move on.

But I don't want the subject of this group to die. And I think
it will die if something drastic isn't done.

__Genuine__ rec.ponders.........how do you feel about all this?

george (not my real name)

As you can see, the address on this update was .

I use several

I will try to remember to leave it either as ron or as george

Also, I post from several different news providers.

george (not my real name)




On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:25:40 -0500, wrote:

I've spent several more hours doing research.
Here is a ( brief?) update. (It turned out longer than I
intended. Please try to read through all of it. I've repeated a lot
of those things that are critical.)

The main control group (Big-8 Usenet org) that actually creates
new groups has recently changed their methods. There is no longer
any public voting (which allowed all kinds of fraud and abuse.)
This is a __very__ good thing, which will be a definite plus in
getting a moderated group going..

Basicly, 4 things need to happen.

1. First, publicize the fact that a new moderated group may be
formed if there is enough interest. We need to spred the word to
former rec. ponders. Their positive imput will be very helpful (see
step 3 below.)

2. An RFD (request for discussion) has to be written and
submitted. This should also include a FAQ giving all necessary
reasons and details. This __must__ also include a list of
persons who agree to act as moderators.

3. The Big-8 Usenet organization puts the FAQ and RFD on a
newly created newsgroup and opens it up for discussion.
The new group is " news.groups.proposals ". It is
moderated and was just created on 11-18-06. Your news provider
may/probably does not carry it yet. Please ask them to carry it.
All discussion pro/con __must__ take place on that group. After
your news provider starts to carry it, you will need to subscribe to
it. And let former rec.ponders know about it. Their imput will be
a huge help in getting the Big-8 group to authorize creation.

This new group (news.groups.proposals) is run by and
moderated by the big-8, and they will filter out all posts that come
from trolls, have flames or abusive language, or invalid email
addresses. They are VERY familiar with the more well-known usenet
trolls, and will filter them out. What gets through should be an
honest picture of the desire to have a new rec.ponds.moderated group.

4. After a length of time, the Big-8 Board will review all the
discussion and will vote on whether to allow the creation of a new
rec.ponds.moderated group..
(There is no longer a public CFV -call for vote--, and that will
stop the trolls from "stuffing the ballot box". A VERY good thing.)


Until recently the Big-8 had a different method of creating
groups, and it tended to favor fraud and abuse. It also had voting
rules that made many honest people reluctant to vote in favor of a
new group. ALL THAT HAS NOW CHANGED. The voting is now internal,
amongst the members of the Big-8 board.

What need to be done now?

1. I will be spending the next 5-7 days learning more about all
the details. I'll report back here occassionally with updates.

2. First and foremost, we need to have a group of long-term,
trusted, genuine rec. ponders who will consider acting as moderators.
These persons will have a lot of power in judging which posts go
through, which need editing, and which get thrown out.
IF YOU ARE A RECOGNIZED, WELL-KNOWN, GENUINE, LONG-TERM PONDER,
WILL YOU CONSIDER HELPING OUT? No firm commitments are needed until
all the facts & details are worked out and ready for submission.

3. I need to do more research on the various software programs
that act as robo-moderators. These programs do the first interception
of all posts and filter out the obvious trolls, junk, abuse,
off-topic, cross-posted, etc. posts. A robo-moderator program will
also intercept and kill any troll who decides to flood the moderators
with hundreds or thousands of posts. This will greatly reduce the
workload for the moderators.

I have a lot of work to do in the coming week, or more. All I
need to know is,...do I have the support of genuine rec.ponders who
truly love the subject of this group, and want to see it survive?

Its true that there is already a moderated group on google, but
I don't care for google groups. I would much prefer a usenet group.
Also, the google group has aquaria posts, and goes well beyond the
original intended focus of the rec.ponds group.

As a last note, I would be willing to act as a co-moderator, but
in truth I'm not a good choice. I am an unknown, and loyal
rec.ponders can't be sure of my motives, or know what I might do as a
moderator.
My intentions are very honest and sincere. But most, if not
all, co-moderators need to be recognized, loyal, long-term, neutral
ponders who can be trusted to make judgements on what goes through and
what gets blocked. I want to help, and will help if allowed, but I'm
not a good choice, at least not at this time. Simply because you
really don't know me or my track record..

Anyways, I'll stop for now.

I'm going back to do more research. But I need to hear feedback
from the people who love the subject of this group.

Is there support for this project? Can we get a group of
potential co-moderators who would be willing to help out (provided
that things are set up so that they don't get swamped with work.)
At this point, I think that a robo-moderator, plus 3-4-5 co-moderators
should be sufficient to spred the workload out.)

I'll be checking back to see what the reaction is to this post.
If there is no support, then I'll drop the project and move on.

But I don't want the subject of this group to die. And I think
it will die if something drastic isn't done.

__Genuine__ rec.ponders.........how do you feel about all this?

george (not my real name)

I really hope you're able to create it. The only problem with moderated
newsgroups, is the time commitment necessary for the moderator, even with a
good filtering program. Moderating a newsgroup is a thankless job.

I see 2 problems with creating a new newsgroup, especially one that's
moderated.

1) Stress & time commitment from the moderators. Consider this in this
newsgroup, we currently see many posts from obvious trolls, those can easily
be filtered. However we also see a flood of posts from a certain individual,
many from an army of alternate identities and different news servers. Some
on topic, most not, and usually retaliatory. Should half that persons posts
make it, and the other half not, it's usually going to result in long
standing controversy, and encourage the moderators to black list them.

2) Newsgroup critical mass. It's really difficult to create a new newsgroup,
and populate it. Various forums, mailing lists, google & yahoo groups have
spun off from here, most have failed because they never achived critical
mass, for a variety of reasons. If you build it, they will come is almost
never true.

But good luck.

-S

Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:25:40 -0500, wrote:

I've spent several more hours doing research.
Here is a ( brief?) update. (It turned out longer than I
intended. Please try to read through all of it. I've repeated a lot
of those things that are critical.)

The main control group (Big-8 Usenet org) that actually creates
new groups has recently changed their methods. There is no longer
any public voting (which allowed all kinds of fraud and abuse.)
This is a __very__ good thing, which will be a definite plus in
getting a moderated group going..

Basicly, 4 things need to happen.

1. First, publicize the fact that a new moderated group may be
formed if there is enough interest. We need to spred the word to
former rec. ponders. Their positive imput will be very helpful (see
step 3 below.)

2. An RFD (request for discussion) has to be written and
submitted. This should also include a FAQ giving all necessary
reasons and details. This __must__ also include a list of
persons who agree to act as moderators.

3. The Big-8 Usenet organization puts the FAQ and RFD on a
newly created newsgroup and opens it up for discussion.
The new group is " news.groups.proposals ". It is
moderated and was just created on 11-18-06. Your news provider
may/probably does not carry it yet. Please ask them to carry it.
All discussion pro/con __must__ take place on that group. After
your news provider starts to carry it, you will need to subscribe to
it. And let former rec.ponders know about it. Their imput will be
a huge help in getting the Big-8 group to authorize creation.

This new group (news.groups.proposals) is run by and
moderated by the big-8, and they will filter out all posts that come
from trolls, have flames or abusive language, or invalid email
addresses. They are VERY familiar with the more well-known usenet
trolls, and will filter them out. What gets through should be an
honest picture of the desire to have a new rec.ponds.moderated group.

4. After a length of time, the Big-8 Board will review all the
discussion and will vote on whether to allow the creation of a new
rec.ponds.moderated group..
(There is no longer a public CFV -call for vote--, and that will
stop the trolls from "stuffing the ballot box". A VERY good thing.)


Until recently the Big-8 had a different method of creating
groups, and it tended to favor fraud and abuse. It also had voting
rules that made many honest people reluctant to vote in favor of a
new group. ALL THAT HAS NOW CHANGED. The voting is now internal,
amongst the members of the Big-8 board.

What need to be done now?

1. I will be spending the next 5-7 days learning more about all
the details. I'll report back here occassionally with updates.

2. First and foremost, we need to have a group of long-term,
trusted, genuine rec. ponders who will consider acting as moderators.
These persons will have a lot of power in judging which posts go
through, which need editing, and which get thrown out.
IF YOU ARE A RECOGNIZED, WELL-KNOWN, GENUINE, LONG-TERM PONDER,
WILL YOU CONSIDER HELPING OUT? No firm commitments are needed until
all the facts & details are worked out and ready for submission.

3. I need to do more research on the various software programs
that act as robo-moderators. These programs do the first interception
of all posts and filter out the obvious trolls, junk, abuse,
off-topic, cross-posted, etc. posts. A robo-moderator program will
also intercept and kill any troll who decides to flood the moderators
with hundreds or thousands of posts. This will greatly reduce the
workload for the moderators.

I have a lot of work to do in the coming week, or more. All I
need to know is,...do I have the support of genuine rec.ponders who
truly love the subject of this group, and want to see it survive?

Its true that there is already a moderated group on google, but
I don't care for google groups. I would much prefer a usenet group.
Also, the google group has aquaria posts, and goes well beyond the
original intended focus of the rec.ponds group.

As a last note, I would be willing to act as a co-moderator, but
in truth I'm not a good choice. I am an unknown, and loyal
rec.ponders can't be sure of my motives, or know what I might do as a
moderator.
My intentions are very honest and sincere. But most, if not
all, co-moderators need to be recognized, loyal, long-term, neutral
ponders who can be trusted to make judgements on what goes through and
what gets blocked. I want to help, and will help if allowed, but I'm
not a good choice, at least not at this time. Simply because you
really don't know me or my track record..

Anyways, I'll stop for now.

I'm going back to do more research. But I need to hear feedback
from the people who love the subject of this group.

Is there support for this project? Can we get a group of
potential co-moderators who would be willing to help out (provided
that things are set up so that they don't get swamped with work.)
At this point, I think that a robo-moderator, plus 3-4-5 co-moderators
should be sufficient to spred the workload out.)

I'll be checking back to see what the reaction is to this post.
If there is no support, then I'll drop the project and move on.

But I don't want the subject of this group to die. And I think
it will die if something drastic isn't done.

__Genuine__ rec.ponders.........how do you feel about all this?

george (not my real name)
-----------------

Also ponding troll free at:
http://groups.google.com/group/The-Freshwater-Aquarium

~ janj wrote:
Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan


You were against moderation before. What changed?

wrote in message
...
I'm going back to do more research. But I need to hear feedback
from the people who love the subject of this group.

Is there support for this project? Can we get a group of
potential co-moderators who would be willing to help out (provided
that things are set up so that they don't get swamped with work.)
At this point, I think that a robo-moderator, plus 3-4-5 co-moderators
should be sufficient to spred the workload out.)

I'll be checking back to see what the reaction is to this post.
If there is no support, then I'll drop the project and move on.

But I don't want the subject of this group to die. And I think
it will die if something drastic isn't done.

__Genuine__ rec.ponders.........how do you feel about all this?

george (not my real name)

I would certainly check out a new Usenet group. Although to be honest, I
don't see much of the crap that you speak of, since I have this group so
heavily filtered.

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:36:48 GMT, ~ janj wrote:

Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan

I'm retired, so I've got the time. I'm also incredibly lazy, perhaps best
known for sitting around while others do the hard work, then trying to take
some of the credit. But I've disappointed people before and I'm not afraid
to disappoint people again. Yeah, I'd be willing to lend a hand. I don't
know a whole lot about ponds or fish, but I can recognize a name-calling
post when I see one.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Guns don't kill people, religions do

I would also be interested in a moderated newsgroup.
While some people can filter many folks just looking for
information probably give rec.ponds a pass. Too much
work, to scary looking when you first open it up.

k30
www.blogfromthebog.com

Thanks, ~janj.

Right now I'm just hoping for potential co-moderators, and not
asking anyone to make a definite commitment, until all the nuts and
bolts are in place. ("nuts" doesn't sound right!!)

My current goals are two-fold:

1. to consult with other moderated groups to discover the best way
of doing things. I already have put out a couple "feelers". I want
a robo-moderator that will have excellent filters to cut out 95% of
the junk, including floods. That will leave the human co-moderators
with a lot less work. I need to talk with other moderated groups to
see how "things are done". All this info would be passed on to
potential moderators to help them decide.
Other groups can also give advice on how to stop hipcrime.
I'm told that it can be done.

2. My second goal is to ask other genuine rec ponders to help
spred the word. We need to get back everyone we can, so that they can
have a positive say on "news.groups.proposals." That will help
convince the group-creation organization, "Big-8 Usenet" to vote
positively in our favor.
WE also need to spred the word about this new
" news.groups.proposals ". Its brand new as of 11-18-06.
Its run and moderated by Big-8.
And the only way for people to make their voice heard by Big-8 is
on that newsgroup.
So ask everyone to ask their news provider to start carrying the
group, and then they need to subscribe to it.


I also am going to be contacting a couple pond groups in my area
and give them info on what we are trying to do. Hopefully some of
them used to visit rec.ponds, and might be willing to help out, or at
least make their voice heard.


george (not my real name)





On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:36:48 GMT, ~ janj wrote:

Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:25:40 -0500, wrote:

I've spent several more hours doing research.
Here is a ( brief?) update. (It turned out longer than I
intended. Please try to read through all of it. I've repeated a lot
of those things that are critical.)

The main control group (Big-8 Usenet org) that actually creates
new groups has recently changed their methods. There is no longer
any public voting (which allowed all kinds of fraud and abuse.)
This is a __very__ good thing, which will be a definite plus in
getting a moderated group going..

Basicly, 4 things need to happen.

1. First, publicize the fact that a new moderated group may be
formed if there is enough interest. We need to spred the word to
former rec. ponders. Their positive imput will be very helpful (see
step 3 below.)

2. An RFD (request for discussion) has to be written and
submitted. This should also include a FAQ giving all necessary
reasons and details. This __must__ also include a list of
persons who agree to act as moderators.

3. The Big-8 Usenet organization puts the FAQ and RFD on a
newly created newsgroup and opens it up for discussion.
The new group is " news.groups.proposals ". It is
moderated and was just created on 11-18-06. Your news provider
may/probably does not carry it yet. Please ask them to carry it.
All discussion pro/con __must__ take place on that group. After
your news provider starts to carry it, you will need to subscribe to
it. And let former rec.ponders know about it. Their imput will be
a huge help in getting the Big-8 group to authorize creation.

This new group (news.groups.proposals) is run by and
moderated by the big-8, and they will filter out all posts that come
from trolls, have flames or abusive language, or invalid email
addresses. They are VERY familiar with the more well-known usenet
trolls, and will filter them out. What gets through should be an
honest picture of the desire to have a new rec.ponds.moderated group.

4. After a length of time, the Big-8 Board will review all the
discussion and will vote on whether to allow the creation of a new
rec.ponds.moderated group..
(There is no longer a public CFV -call for vote--, and that will
stop the trolls from "stuffing the ballot box". A VERY good thing.)


Until recently the Big-8 had a different method of creating
groups, and it tended to favor fraud and abuse. It also had voting
rules that made many honest people reluctant to vote in favor of a
new group. ALL THAT HAS NOW CHANGED. The voting is now internal,
amongst the members of the Big-8 board.

What need to be done now?

1. I will be spending the next 5-7 days learning more about all
the details. I'll report back here occassionally with updates.

2. First and foremost, we need to have a group of long-term,
trusted, genuine rec. ponders who will consider acting as moderators.
These persons will have a lot of power in judging which posts go
through, which need editing, and which get thrown out.
IF YOU ARE A RECOGNIZED, WELL-KNOWN, GENUINE, LONG-TERM PONDER,
WILL YOU CONSIDER HELPING OUT? No firm commitments are needed until
all the facts & details are worked out and ready for submission.

3. I need to do more research on the various software programs
that act as robo-moderators. These programs do the first interception
of all posts and filter out the obvious trolls, junk, abuse,
off-topic, cross-posted, etc. posts. A robo-moderator program will
also intercept and kill any troll who decides to flood the moderators
with hundreds or thousands of posts. This will greatly reduce the
workload for the moderators.

I have a lot of work to do in the coming week, or more. All I
need to know is,...do I have the support of genuine rec.ponders who
truly love the subject of this group, and want to see it survive?

Its true that there is already a moderated group on google, but
I don't care for google groups. I would much prefer a usenet group.
Also, the google group has aquaria posts, and goes well beyond the
original intended focus of the rec.ponds group.

As a last note, I would be willing to act as a co-moderator, but
in truth I'm not a good choice. I am an unknown, and loyal
rec.ponders can't be sure of my motives, or know what I might do as a
moderator.
My intentions are very honest and sincere. But most, if not
all, co-moderators need to be recognized, loyal, long-term, neutral
ponders who can be trusted to make judgements on what goes through and
what gets blocked. I want to help, and will help if allowed, but I'm
not a good choice, at least not at this time. Simply because you
really don't know me or my track record..

Anyways, I'll stop for now.

I'm going back to do more research. But I need to hear feedback
from the people who love the subject of this group.

Is there support for this project? Can we get a group of
potential co-moderators who would be willing to help out (provided
that things are set up so that they don't get swamped with work.)
At this point, I think that a robo-moderator, plus 3-4-5 co-moderators
should be sufficient to spred the workload out.)

I'll be checking back to see what the reaction is to this post.
If there is no support, then I'll drop the project and move on.

But I don't want the subject of this group to die. And I think
it will die if something drastic isn't done.

__Genuine__ rec.ponders.........how do you feel about all this?

george (not my real name)
-----------------

Also ponding troll free at:
http://groups.google.com/group/The-Freshwater-Aquarium

~ janj wrote:
Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan

You don't know me, but you can dig back and find my serious/sensible posts.
I'd fully support a moderated pond group, and would help in any way I can.
--
ßôyþëtë

wrote:
Thanks, ~janj.

Right now I'm just hoping for potential co-moderators, and not
asking anyone to make a definite commitment, until all the nuts and
bolts are in place. ("nuts" doesn't sound right!!)

My current goals are two-fold:

1. to consult with other moderated groups to discover the best way
of doing things. I already have put out a couple "feelers". I want
a robo-moderator that will have excellent filters to cut out 95% of
the junk, including floods. That will leave the human co-moderators
with a lot less work. I need to talk with other moderated groups to
see how "things are done". All this info would be passed on to
potential moderators to help them decide.
Other groups can also give advice on how to stop hipcrime.
I'm told that it can be done.

2. My second goal is to ask other genuine rec ponders to help
spred the word. We need to get back everyone we can, so that they can
have a positive say on "news.groups.proposals." That will help
convince the group-creation organization, "Big-8 Usenet" to vote
positively in our favor.
WE also need to spred the word about this new
" news.groups.proposals ". Its brand new as of 11-18-06.
Its run and moderated by Big-8.
And the only way for people to make their voice heard by Big-8 is
on that newsgroup.
So ask everyone to ask their news provider to start carrying the
group, and then they need to subscribe to it.


I also am going to be contacting a couple pond groups in my area
and give them info on what we are trying to do. Hopefully some of
them used to visit rec.ponds, and might be willing to help out, or at
least make their voice heard.


george (not my real name)


George, I applaud what you are trying to do.
I mod'ed a pond forum for a while till the owner gave up through lack of
support.
Never done a newsgroup though.
Mail me if I can be of help. Reply to is genuine. (don't bother trolls, I
have a very efficient filter )
--
ßôyþëtë

"~ janj" wrote in message
...
Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan

I'm retired, so I have the time. I'd like to see rec.ponds back to what it
used to be. If that means a moderated group, it's worth a try.

Gail
near San Antonio TX

I "ditto" your answer below, Jan - (hoping this is a legitamate post with
fingers crossed :~) ) - P.S - G Pearce
Gale :~)
"~ janj" wrote in message
...
Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan

~ janj wrote:
Full support here. I'll co-moderate if it isn't time consuming, or too
techno-difficult. Derek, Solo? Maybe K30 would come back? Nick? Gail?
Galen? Phyllis/Jim? G Pierce? Bill, DavidM? ~ jan

I do think it would be good idea, Jan. Then only the moderators would get
the junk! I would like to help, but my life is in chaos and I'm too
irresposible to be counted on. I'll make sure that my NewsReader carries
news.groups.proposals and will put some comments on the proposal for the
group. Thanks.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

*Note: There are several *Koi-Lo's* on the pond and aquaria groups.

wrote in message
...
As you can see, the address on this update was .

I use several

I will try to remember to leave it either as ron or as george

Also, I post from several different news providers.

george (not my real name)
==========================
So do many of the trolls and yet almost all originate from an account with
Verizon.net in Camden NJ as verified on 11/3/06. How can anyone trust
anyone on this NG at this point when some of the members themselves
encouraged the trolls and you know who they were and are. ;-)
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö