Thanks Aurelia,

I do prefer to be hands off and to prove that this board really isn't
about the moderators. We do reject a few posts every now and then,
mostly with swearing, spam, insults and the like. One has to work
extra hard to earn a banning, but every so often someone is rewarded
for their hard work (ok thats a joke, just hinting that the decision
is not taken lightly and you need to demonstrate your recalcitrance).

So back to your idea of not allowing dangerous posts. It would
actually be too difficult to police something like that. Everyone
would be subject to the arbitrary decision of a few. What I consider
dangerous and unworthy may have some truth deep down, or something
worthwhile on some level. (hidden in the post was mention of
fluconozole which might be helpful in some circumstances for eg. but
it was too full of other dangerous info). Also you can never know if
someone is just new and uninformed, or a long lurker and pathological.

I'd prefer to let open debate rage, and allow for intelligent and
factual rebuttals. Actually on that front Aurelia, you are a great
intelligent rebutteler (try finding that in a dictionary!), thanks for
being a great resources for the group in keeping up with the quack
watching.

regards,
davidp.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:13:33 +1300, aurelia.dawn
<aurelia.dawn@...> wrote:
> Hi David.
>
> First of all, please let me say that like most members of this group, I have
> the greatest respect and admiration for you and for the years of selfless
> work that have gone into providing us with this wonderful board. Most of us
> would find the struggle against rosacea very much harder without your help,
> and that of our dear Matija.
>
> However (yes, there is always a "however"! ;) I was surprised by your
> message complaining about the post by Grubber1. Yes, it is terrible when
> people "advocate dangerous treatments that they should know better about,
> and can be devastating to peoples' rosacea". Of course it is irresponsible
> to say "these may be harmful, just for your info".
>
> Your anger is understandable, but why respond by "being extra polite"?
> Honestly, who will benefit from that?
>
> It's good that you've posted a warning, saying: "Please, everyone keep away
> from these chemicals", but if it's a bad thing to submit irresponsible
> posts, isn't it even worse to accept them? Why are posts advocating such
> treatments accepted onto this board?
>
> We know you don't like banning people or removing posts, but there are other
> rosacea groups where Grubber1's dangerous message would be right at home.
> PLEASE be a bit tougher next time.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Aurelia
>
>


--
David Pascoe, pascoedj@...