gullible fool wrote: >> The original agreement included the understanding >> that the group was being moderated, hence rules such >> as these were always a possibility. >> > > There's been little to no moderation in this group > over its five and a half year existence. Some > moderation was added a few years ago, but that was > done ONLY because of a growing problem with > adult-oriented spam. The solution that worked best was > to make FFL a restricted group, meaning all > prospective new members could not join without first > being approved by a moderator. Technically, we had > moderation, but anyone who applied to join and filled > out the comment section in a way that indicated that > person wanted to be a legitimate member would be > approved to join and would not be put on moderated > status and could get away with posting 50 messages a > day, posting profanity, posting their daily jyotish > spam message, you name it. > > - I can see moderation to keep out spammers but the post limit seemed to be to appease people who are probably inept with the Internet. After all you don't have to read every post and especially it is easy to see that a prolongated argument is going on. A moderator could always warn the prolongated argument people and kick them off. If they come back under different accounts you can then turn them over to Yahoo.
There always seemed to be this group of people in the movement who thought "Vedic living" was something out of the 1890's with women walking around with parasols and guys in suits, bowler hats and mustaches riding bicycles. Completely bizarre. The complainers remind me of those types.
