(O.T.) Ongoing amazement.

[John Corliss]

It continues to amaze me that doing something as innocuous as posting
F.A.Q. links generates such huge threads. In other groups, F.A.Q. link
posts usually get no response and we are by no means the only group
with an F.A.Q.
To those who object to simply *having* F.A.Q.s, I say try reading
them before you flippantly object to them as being "netkopping". They
are designed to provide helpful information to new people. If you're
an advanced enough user that you don't need anything in one of our
F.A.Q.s, fine. However, that doesn't mean that somebody else won't
find the information in them of any use.

 

[Vic Dura]

It continues to amaze me that doing something as innocuous as posting
F.A.Q. links generates such huge threads. In other groups, F.A.Q. link
posts usually get no response and we are by no means the only group
with an F.A.Q.
To those who object to simply *having* F.A.Q.s, I say try reading
them before you flippantly object to them as being "netkopping".

Well, this is an example of what some people object to.

You immediately characterize objections as "flippant", i.e. you
denigrate the objections, refusing to at least recognize that
dissenting views may have valid points. I realize that you don't agree
with the dissenting views, and that is ok. Nothing wrong with that.
However when you refuse to accept the dissent as *possibly*
legitimate, I believe you just fuel the fires of resentment and IMO
make the dissenters more resolute in their objections.

Your observation about other NGs with FAQs not experiencing this
phenomenon is probably correct. However, IMO that is because those
other NGs do not have a clique of Control Freaks that attempted to use
a extremely detailed and pedantic FAQ as a basis for micro-controlling
the NG content and for harassing newbies. That won't work in an un
moderated alt-NG.

As I mentioned in several previous posts, IMO your inclusion of the
"Anti-FAQ" in your periodic announcement to newbies was a magnanimous
and accommodating gesture to those you disagree with. I interpreted it
as a tacit recognition of (but not agreement with) their dissenting
opinions. Perhaps I was wrong, but I hope you will continue with it.

 

[Ben Cooper]

It continues to amaze me that doing something as innocuous as posting
F.A.Q. links generates such huge threads. In other groups, F.A.Q. link
posts usually get no response and we are by no means the only group
with an F.A.Q.
To those who object to simply *having* F.A.Q.s, I say try reading
them before you flippantly object to them as being "netkopping". They
are designed to provide helpful information to new people. If you're
an advanced enough user that you don't need anything in one of our
F.A.Q.s, fine. However, that doesn't mean that somebody else won't
find the information in them of any use.

Hi, John,

I like the FAQ you created. It comes across as well written and friendly.
Nice to include the AntiFAQ; which I believe to be entertaining and useful,
too.
You have to admit, though... after all the time you've participated in
newsgroups, you shouldn't be so amazed.

 

[BillR]

It continues to amaze me that doing something as innocuous as posting
F.A.Q. links generates such huge threads. In other groups, F.A.Q. link
posts usually get no response and we are by no means the only group
with an F.A.Q.
To those who object to simply *having* F.A.Q.s, I say try reading
them before you flippantly object to them as being "netkopping". They
are designed to provide helpful information to new people. If you're
an advanced enough user that you don't need anything in one of our
F.A.Q.s, fine. However, that doesn't mean that somebody else won't
find the information in them of any use.

While these FAQs contain useful information, some of the statements
(opinions) are controversial. Many of the non-controversial FAQs that
I've read have a much higher proportion of on topic, relevant Q/A. I
don't remember sections in your FAQ devoted to where to find PL and
how to safely download generating controversy.

To be fair, part of the problem is that the site contains much of the
information that one would otherwise expect to appear in the FAQ.

Furthermore, as one of the outspoken "enforcers" of a particular
viewpoint, your weekly post is a magnet for dissension.

BillR

 

[-½cut]

John Corliss wrote in

It continues to amaze me that doing something as innocuous as posting
F.A.Q. links generates such huge threads. In other groups, F.A.Q. link
posts usually get no response and we are by no means the only group
with an F.A.Q.

It does seem to be a no-win situation, right enough. On the plus side, the
FAQ posts do seem to contain quite a bit of the abuse and sniping, so maybe
the posts serve a double purpose....informational and bitchiness
containment.

 

[Tiger]

Well, this is an example of what some people object to.

You immediately characterize objections as "flippant", i.e. you
denigrate the objections, refusing to at least recognize that
dissenting views may have valid points.

Your logic is flawed. Read what John typed again. The "flippant"
objections belong to those who reject the faqs without reading them on
the basis that faqs in general are examples of "netkopping."

Clearly your bias is coloring your comprehension.

<snipped the remainder of response based on a biased and clearly
inaccurate interpretation>

--
Tiger

"Zero is where the fun starts
There is too much counting everywhere else."
- Hafiz

 

[Vic Dura]

Your logic is flawed. Read what John typed again. The "flippant"
objections belong to those who reject the faqs without reading them on
the basis that faqs in general are examples of "netkopping."

If that is the case, then I stand corrected.

 

[John Corliss]

Hi, John,

I like the FAQ you created. It comes across as well written and friendly.
Nice to include the AntiFAQ; which I believe to be entertaining and useful,
too.
You have to admit, though... after all the time you've participated in
newsgroups, you shouldn't be so amazed.

Ben,
You certainly have a point. Expecially regarding this group. 80)>

 

[John Corliss]

While these FAQs contain useful information, some of the statements
(opinions) are controversial. Many of the non-controversial FAQs that
I've read have a much higher proportion of on topic, relevant Q/A. I
don't remember sections in your FAQ devoted to where to find PL and
how to safely download generating controversy.

As far as I know, the only section that *does* generate controversy is
the definitions page:

http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./Page3.html

and that's just too bad. This group has discussed that definition ad
nauseum and it's not going to change in order to satisfy a
malcontented minority.

As far as the Netiquette and "How to avoid getting flamed" portions,
they are just common sense and are (or at least were) in fact linked
to in other F.A.Q.s.

To be fair, part of the problem is that the site contains much of the
information that one would otherwise expect to appear in the FAQ.

Furthermore, as one of the outspoken "enforcers" of a particular
viewpoint, your weekly post is a magnet for dissension.

Bill, you need to do a reassessment. I haven't been "enforcing" very
much lately because I just don't have the time. Regardless, if I *did*
have the time, I certainly WOULD. As for being a spamcop, my ISP's
newsfeed filters out the spam so I usually no longer see it unless
somebody else replies to it.

As I've said many, many times in the past, the F.A.Q. I wrote was only
created after *extensive* discussion and voting in this group. What
you consider to be "controversial" and "opinions" are nothing of the
sort. Those items are derived from other F.A.Q.s and from (again)
extensive discussion here in the group.

 

[Duddits]

It continues to amaze me that doing something as innocuous as posting
F.A.Q. links generates such huge threads. In other groups, F.A.Q. link
posts usually get no response and we are by no means the only group
with an F.A.Q.
To those who object to simply *having* F.A.Q.s, I say try reading
them before you flippantly object to them as being "netkopping". They
are designed to provide helpful information to new people. If you're
an advanced enough user that you don't need anything in one of our
F.A.Q.s, fine. However, that doesn't mean that somebody else won't
find the information in them of any use.

John

The trolls (you know who they are) love to razz you. *You* make yourself a
target by swapping insults, etc with them. Anytime you start a thread, the
trolls stir the *hit. Others join in, some to defend you, others to
support the trolls. Hence, the huge threads.........

..02

Dud

 

[Foust]

[snip]
|Bill, you need to do a reassessment. I haven't been "enforcing" very
|much lately because I just don't have the time.

And people are glad you don't have the time. ACF has been a pleasure to
read without you.
[snip}

|As I've said many, many times in the past, the F.A.Q. I wrote was only
|created after *extensive* discussion and voting in this group.

Ah yes, but it's a whole new group of people now. Different people with
different views. Your point that there was a vote is useless on many
levels.

1. The vote counts for nothing here as this is a unmoderated group.
Though you wish it was.

2. The vote is an ancient one. The thing was taken years ago.

3. There are a bunch of new people here that don't think like you or the
people involved with your precious vote.


|What
|you consider to be "controversial" and "opinions" are nothing of the
|sort. Those items are derived from other F.A.Q.s and from (again)
|extensive discussion here in the group.

Again this is according to you. There have been many extensive
discussions in the last year alone that prove that people are not happy
with the current definitions. Apparently though the ONLY thing that
counts is what was done long ago. That's why there are two other FAQ.
That's why they redid the Pricelessware definitions. Every thing else is
irrevelent because you say it is? People just ain't happy with the ones
you have and the way you try to cram them down their throats.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

The trolls (you know who they are) love to razz you. *You* make yourself a
target by swapping insults, etc with them. Anytime you start a thread, the
trolls stir the *hit. Others join in, some to defend you, others to
support the trolls. Hence, the huge threads.........

So John should give in and stop posting? No, I don't think the trolls
should have that easy a win.

 

[POKO]

The Faqs are intended for new folks to the NG, ergo they get posted
weekly.
Mr. Dic...make that Vic is not a newbie so he should know that he need
not read the faqs.
Mr. John is doing the NG a service.
Mr Dic...make that Vic is doing it a diservice by not simply posting his
anti-faq and leaving it at that. All his crying, whining and attacking
simply demonstrate that he is a very sad individual who craves attention
and demands that his way is always the right way.
I say; screw him and keep on posting 'em John
Best to "all",
Dr. POKO

 

[Bernd Schmitt]

You are right.

An idea:

Maybe we should do a regular combined voting.

Those voting could be for the priceless list. Participants of this
voting could add a line like:

[X} I agree to the faq, no changes needed.
or
[X] I do not agree to the faq, please change it.

and if a majority wants to change the faq, they have to decide who will
take care of it and they have to organize the changing procedure. Until
that, the former faq will remain valid (like a constructive motion of
no-confidence).

 

[Mike Echo]

The Faqs are intended for new folks to the NG, ergo they get posted
weekly.
Mr. Dic...make that Vic is not a newbie so he should know that he need
not read the faqs.
Mr. John is doing the NG a service.
Mr Dic...make that Vic is doing it a diservice by not simply posting his
anti-faq and leaving it at that. All his crying, whining and attacking
simply demonstrate that he is a very sad individual who craves attention
and demands that his way is always the right way.
I say; screw him and keep on posting 'em John
Best to "all",
Dr. POKO

I haven't noticed Vic lowering himself to the level of personal attacks.
In fact, I have seen him actually admit if/when he is wrong. And no, I'm
not the president of his fan club.

 

[Vic Dura]

Mr. Dic...make that Vic is not a newbie so he should know that he need

Mr Dic...make that Vic

Down to name calling now? How articulate. Even Mr. Corliss, with whom
I frequently disagree, doesn't doesn't do that.

What next? Call the people you disagree with "stupid-heads"?

 

[John Corliss]

[snip]
|Bill, you need to do a reassessment. I haven't been "enforcing" very
|much lately because I just don't have the time.

And people are glad you don't have the time. ACF has been a pleasure to
read without you.
[snip}

Indeed, snip.

Anything said by a sock puppet using troll is irrelevant.

 

[Foust]

|Foust (Mavis Chillum troll) wrote:
Wrong. FYI there are other people that don't like you.

|
|Indeed, snip.
|
|Anything said by a sock puppet using troll is irrelevant.
|
|

I MIGHT be a Sock Puppet, never gave it much thought actually. However
that does not change the fact that I am right. That people are not happy
with the your anal definitions of freeware. Which are based on some
outdated vote.

 

[John Corliss]

|Foust (Mavis Chillum troll) wrote:
Wrong. FYI there are other people that don't like you.

|
|Indeed, snip.
|
|Anything said by a sock puppet using troll is irrelevant.
|
|

I MIGHT be a Sock Puppet, never gave it much thought actually. However
that does not change the fact that I am right. That people are not happy
with the your anal definitions of freeware. Which are based on some
outdated vote.

A. Yes, anybody who consistently changes their username, alters header
information and who deliberately sets out to provoke trouble is a sock
puppet troll as well as a coward. And saying that you are a coward is
not name calling because the appellation is a precise description of
you based on your behavior.

B. Are you speaking for the group now?

C. There is only one definition for freeware:

"Freeware is programming that is offered
for your use at no cost, monetary or
otherwise. You may use freeware for as
long as you wish."

About what aspect of that *definition* (note the singular) do you
disagree?

If you are disagreeing with the definitions of *OTHER TYPES OF
SOFTWARE* on the definitions page, be specific rather than making such
generalized remarks. Which of the definitions do you disagree with and
specifically what is it that you disagree WITH? The onus is on YOU to
provide details. Otherwise, we have nothing further to discuss.

I fully expect that your next move as a troll is to either:

1. fail to respond in a civil and productive fashion
2. fail to respond at all.

Why don't you fool me entirely by doing something constructive instead.

 

[Foust]

|A. Yes, anybody who consistently changes their username, alters header
|information and who deliberately sets out to provoke trouble is a sock
|puppet troll as well as a coward. And saying that you are a coward is
|not name calling because the appellation is a precise description of
|you based on your behavior.

I do change my username from time to time. Nothing wrong with that on the
whole. Just ask Wassup erm I mean Duddits. Altering headers? LOL I wish I
was so talented. I didn't set out to deliberately provoke anyone.

|
|B. Are you speaking for the group now?

No sir I am not. Neither are you.

|
|C. There is only one definition for freeware:

| "Freeware is programming that is offered
| for your use at no cost, monetary or
| otherwise. You may use freeware for as
| long as you wish."
|
|About what aspect of that *definition* (note the singular) do you
|disagree?

For me any ways it's the word "otherwise" The way I was raised if you
didn't have to pay money for it [and it was legal] than it was free. It
was as simple as black and white.

|If you are disagreeing with the definitions of *OTHER TYPES OF
|SOFTWARE* on the definitions page, be specific rather than making such
|generalized remarks. Which of the definitions do you disagree with and
|specifically what is it that you disagree WITH? The onus is on YOU to
|provide details. Otherwise, we have nothing further to discuss.

I see it like this. Freeware is an umbrella term. Under this umbrella
there are many different flavors. Adware, Liteware, CDware etc. These are
still Freeware. They are legal and cost no money to use.

No one disputes the fact that you have a different definition of what
freeware is. Some people agree with your definition of Freeware. Some
people don't.


|
|I fully expect that your next move as a troll is to either:
|
|1. fail to respond in a civil and productive fashion

I think I am pretty civil most of the time.

|2. fail to respond at all.

Life as you know has a way of keeping one from posting to the newsgroups
they so love.

|Why don't you fool me entirely by doing something constructive instead.

Are you fooled yet?