J
John Fitzsimons
The words "In your dreams" come to mind here.
The words "In your dreams" come to mind here.
J
John Fitzsimons
On 29 Oct 2003 09:51:22 -0800, (e-mail address removed) ([email protected])
wrote:
My FAQ has been "updated" a number of times since it was created. You
obviously haven't been paying attention.
Regards, John.
wrote:
My FAQ has been "updated" a number of times since it was created. You
obviously haven't been paying attention.
Regards, John.
J
John Fitzsimons
< snip >
That, and the snipped bit, both well written and seconded.
J
John Fitzsimons
Thirded.
J
John Fitzsimons
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:33:26 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
For it to be an ACF webring it would have needed to be fully discussed
here FIRST. Voted on and restrictions on membership discussed.
IMO the name is misleading. Calling it the rtdos webring would be more
appropriate.
Regards, John.
For it to be an ACF webring it would have needed to be fully discussed
here FIRST. Voted on and restrictions on membership discussed.
IMO the name is misleading. Calling it the rtdos webring would be more
appropriate.
Regards, John.
S
Steve H
Same here.
Regards,
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
T
Tiger
The fact that they keep referring to *the* faq clearly indicates that
the problem is with John Corliss...which indicates a personal
bias...not that anyone is surprised by that...at least no one who has
been around 5th graders for any length of time.
V
Vic Dura
I would agree that a new FAQ is in order. The problem is: what do we
put in it? I suggested a very simple definition of freeware in another
thread, and it had virtually no support.
My impression is that many (not all) people want a FAQ with a lot
details, definitions, covenants, conditions, exceptions and
restrictions. They just can't agree on the details. I would not want
to try to maintain a FAQ like that, regardless of what it says.
IMO freeware is "software that can be obtained legally without
monetary payment to the software author and/or copyright holder".
That doesn't need to be a FAQ, it can be a sig. As a matter of
courtesy and information, any "conditions" (registerware, nagware,
adware, thankyouware, BeNiceToYourPetsWare, etc.) associated with the
freeware should be mentioned.
That's what I believe. IMO anything more complicated is impossible to
enforce in an un-moderated alt-NG; as we have seen. Also, I do not
believe a FAQ adopted by a simple majority is appropriate for an
un-moderated alt-NG. These NGs by their nature were designed to
facilitate free-wheeling and wide-ranging discussion. Forbearance and
tolerance of decent (rather than censorship) are the key words here.
That's the main reason they are un-moderated IMO. I don't think anyone
should try to change that with less than a 2/3 majority supported FAQ.
That will never happen here.
Obviously there are a lot of folks here that are not comfortable
and/or happy with free-wheeling and wide-ranging discussion. They want
a more focused environment with a high degree of command and control.
There is nothing wrong with that at all and I understand their
frustration in not being able to impose that kind of environment here.
An un-moderated alt-NG is just not designed for that.
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
Can it be enforced? No.
Can it be encouraged? Yes.
I disagree.
As well, the sort of net-anarchy you espouse can be discouraged. You
frequently choose to call those who discourage it "control freaks."
Another has compared them to terrorists a few times. What fun.
R
Roger Johansson
These rigid oldtimers have have no distance to themselves and their
preconceptions, they are completely swallowed up by their own ideas.
In their world they are the guardians of the holy rules they have
invented. They think they own this newgroup, and that they own the
abbreviation acf.
It is incredible.
And now they are getting desperate, and post loads of messages
supporting each other.
But whatever they do they cannot change the fact that the recent vote
and many messages from others show that there is no consensus on their
old rules.
D
Duddits
fourthed ;-)
R
Roger Johansson
Vic Dura said:
I agree, but if there is no new FAQ these oldtimers can continue to
peddle their old FAQ unchallenged by any newer document.
They can continue to beat newcomers over the head with that old FAQ,
in spite of the current views of the acf community.
So I think it would be a good idea to say basically what you said in
this message, and maybe complement it with the averages of the votes
just to show the current views of a number of participants in a new
faq.
In that way newcomers have more than one document to choose from, and
are encouraged to think for themselves instead of slavishly follow
some strict rules.
B
BoB
Big Snip
There are plenty of us still around and comments like this does not
encourage our interest in the webring. See below.
BoB
For the duration of Swen, my address is inoperative.
There are plenty of us still around and comments like this does not
encourage our interest in the webring. See below.
BoB
For the duration of Swen, my address is inoperative.
P
privacy.at Anonymous Remailer
Randy Bard said:
He does not endorse the FAQ. He does endorse the newsgroup. They
are different things.
..
R
rtdos
»Q« said:
IIRC isn't is present tense and were is PAST tense.
R
rtdos
Tiger said:
Whose FAQ? Certainly not the majority.
R
rtdos
Blinky the Shark said:
but who has the authority to update the FAQ then?
R
rtdos
S
stan
agreed also.