>Angus wrote:
>
>> I've been on 3 ag related usenet groups for well over a year..
>> and have seen spams to be sure.. but not of such a huge amount that they
>> concern me.. and I don't _remember_ seeing any from anti-beef people.
>
>You didn't see sci.agriculture in '94; they went around and around for
>weeks on the merits ( and lack thereof ) of beef. There were so many
>posts, I unsubscribed.
>
>However, as you say:
>
>> 2) Moderating a usenet group is one tough, time consuming job.
>
>and, without being accused of censorship, even a moderated group will have
>difficulty curbing passionate topics.
>
>Trudy
>oxen@kear.tdsnet.com
>
Another factor you should consider is that if beef production
really *is* a troll-magnet, then there might be a distinct
advantage to having the alt.agriculture.beef unmoderated and
established now. That way it could be part of the unmod/mod pair
when (I think it's inevitable) a moderated beef newsgroup is
formed in the sci hiearchy.
It's considered somewhat desirable that a moderated group with a
controversial topic have an unmoderated group out there to
diffuse cries of censorship.
Of course, if the group does not turn into a troll-magnet, then
beef producers will have a perfectly good group for discussion
without waiting the weeks or months that a big-8 group would
involve.
Just a thought,
Eve M. Behr
ebehr@internode.net