New people: here are links to the *F.A.Q.*

V

Vic Dura

John Corliss wrote in

Oh bollocks, I'm an establishment figure! Does this mean that I have to
behave well to rebel?

No, just keep up the good work with the "anti-FAQ" :)
 
C

Collaindo

Good to see you're finally taking other peoples opinions into account but I
don't really see why this FAQ should be just for "entetainment", it probably
applies more to this newsgroup than the other two versions do.
 
J

John Fitzsimons

I LOVE IT !
Bill

Yes, rather "cute" of John. Logical enough though. If someone is dopey
enough to bother writing an anti-FAQ then they should make sure it is
kept up to date, available etc.

Though I personally don't know why JC would bother doing his work for
him by posting the URL. If people want to make childish "statements"
then they can do that by themselves. Why encourage them ?

Regards, John.
 
½

-½cut

John Fitzsimons wrote in
Yes, rather "cute" of John. Logical enough though. If someone is dopey
enough to bother writing an anti-FAQ then they should make sure it is
kept up to date, available etc.

Though I personally don't know why JC would bother doing his work for
him by posting the URL. If people want to make childish "statements"
then they can do that by themselves. Why encourage them ?

It was exactly this sort of pointless sneering attack that the anti-FAQ
was written in response to, so thank you for illustrating the need for
it, yet again. Being the victim, I suppose I ought to refer myself to it
now....

AFAIK the anti-FAQ is available and up to date. Any suggestions for
improvements?
=:cool:
 
V

Vic Dura

John Fitzsimons wrote in

It was exactly this sort of pointless sneering attack that the anti-FAQ
was written in response to, so thank you for illustrating the need for
it, yet again. Being the victim, I suppose I ought to refer myself to it
now....

Well said.
 
J

John Fitzsimons

John Fitzsimons wrote in news:[email protected]:
It was exactly this sort of pointless sneering attack that the anti-FAQ
was written in response to,

Let's see. You make an anti-FAQ, which is a pointless sneering attack
on the existing FAQs. Then complain when someone copies you ?

If you want to reduce the possibility of criticism by others then
consider spending less time criticising others yourself.
so thank you for illustrating the need for
it, yet again. Being the victim, I suppose I ought to refer myself to it
now....

Sure. Check previous posts for your URL. :)
AFAIK the anti-FAQ is available and up to date. Any suggestions for
improvements?
=:cool:

Yep. When you want to promote it do it yourself. Don't wait for JC to
hold your hand.
 
J

John Corliss

Collaindo said:
Good to see you're finally taking other peoples opinions into account but I
don't really see why this FAQ should be just for "entetainment", it probably
applies more to this newsgroup than the other two versions do.

Obviously you've never read either of the two F.A.Q.s or you wouldn't
be making such a flippant remark. Also, don't make the assumption that
the antifaq is intended to convince people that there is no need for
the F.A.Q.s.
 
½

-½cut

John Fitzsimons wrote in
Let's see. You make an anti-FAQ, which is a pointless sneering attack
on the existing FAQs. Then complain when someone copies you ?

If you want to reduce the possibility of criticism by others then
consider spending less time criticising others yourself.

The anti-FAQ was born because I got mightily pissed off about newbies
being gang-banged by the more "established" members of ACF. People can
either use their knowledge to help others or to give themselves a fasle
sense of superiority by slapping others down and I was seeing too much of
the latter.

It was written in the form of a FAQ; both to add a humourous element of
parody to the basic message of "Why don't you lay off newbies and start
helping people you ignorant tosspots", and also because I wrongly
identified John Corliss as being one of the newbie bashers. This has not
been true since I've been on the newsgroup and I have apologised to John
privately and will now repeat the apology publicly.

For the record, I don't spend time criticising others. Both the anti-FAQ
and any other times I've been militant in this NG have been *reactions*
to abuse by others. In this thread, for example, I was nice as pie until
you addressed me as "dopey" and "childish". And then I was less polite.
You see how it works?
Sure. Check previous posts for your URL. :)

Yeah. I was going to delete it when I got back from holiday because I
was sure it would be dead by now; the point having been made. It seems
to be surprisingly popular however, so I suppose I ought to leave it
there as a public service.
Yep. When you want to promote it do it yourself. Don't wait for JC to
hold your hand.

I don't want to promote it. I really couldn't give a rat's arse if it's
there or not. I wrote it -like I say- to make a point. The fact that
people keep referring to it long after I thought they would, seems to me
to indicate that it strikes a nerve and contains some element of truth
that is relevant to this NG and that people identify with. So is that my
fault for writing it or the denizens of the NG for abusing newbies?

I'm not here to promote stuff. I'm here to fill up people's hard disks
for free.

Anyway, I've seen through your cunning plan Mr. Fitzsimons: you're just
laying down bad karma to pump up sales for your "Psychic Protection
Booklet":
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=

The anti-FAQ was born because I got mightily pissed off about
newbies being gang-banged by the more "established" members of
ACF.
[snip]

For the record, I don't spend time criticising others.

Saying that "'established' members of ACF" gang-bang newbies seems
an awful lot like criticism, though.
 
½

-½cut

»Q« wrote in
The anti-FAQ was born because I got mightily pissed off about
newbies being gang-banged by the more "established" members of
ACF. [snip]
For the record, I don't spend time criticising others.

Saying that "'established' members of ACF" gang-bang newbies seems
an awful lot like criticism, though.

Fair cop. That was criticism, right enough.
Let me rephrase then: I don't really want to spend time criticising
others, but can be found doing it in the midst of an argument.
Better?
 
V

Vic Dura

Yeah. I was going to delete it when I got back from holiday because I
was sure it would be dead by now; the point having been made. It seems
to be surprisingly popular however, so I suppose I ought to leave it
there as a public service.

Please don't delete it. It does indeed provide a service to this NG.
If you decide that you don't have time/space to keep it, I would be
happy to host it for you.
 
½

-½cut

Vic Dura wrote in
Please don't delete it. It does indeed provide a service to this NG.
If you decide that you don't have time/space to keep it, I would be
happy to host it for you.

Relax Vic - the anti-FAQ is safe. I was only going to delete it if it was
dead. I may even update it now....you never know.
 
B

BillR

John Corliss said:
Obviously you've never read either of the two F.A.Q.s or you wouldn't
be making such a flippant remark. Also, don't make the assumption that
the antifaq is intended to convince people that there is no need for
the F.A.Q.s.

John C.,
Too bad that you see the anti-FAQ as merely for "entertainment" when
it should be read by everyone. As I've said before, I do appreciate
your including a reference to it and I appreciate the hard work and
many contributions you have made.

I thought you included the humerously presented alternative FAQ
because you understood it but perhaps you included it just so you
could denigrate it before someone could follow your post with a
reference to it. From your response to Collaindo I can only conclude
that while you have read the alternative FAQ, you either failed to
understand it or don't care. I would prefer to believe the former but
.....

BillR

(For the record as I am sure John well remembers, I have read both
FAQs, as can be demonstrated by several very specific comments
addressing the wording.)
 
B

BillR

John F.,

You need to (re?)read the alternative FAQ and then contemplate both
the message and the gently satirical style. Then read your last two
posts and decide where "dopey" and "childish" might be more applicabe.

Your FAQ offers some valuable guidance but it would benefit a great
deal from incorporating some of the points being made in the
alternative FAQ.

BillR
 
B

Blinky the Shark

BillR said:
I thought you included the humerously presented alternative FAQ
because you understood it but perhaps you included it just so you
could denigrate it before someone could follow your post with a
reference to it. From your response to Collaindo I can only conclude
that while you have read the alternative FAQ, you either failed to
understand it or don't care. I would prefer to believe the former but

The guy that wrote the nonFAQ had been here a week (and came in pissing
and moaning about something, IIRC). The real FAQs have evolved over a
span of years, and two actual *contributors* of long standing have kept
them. Do the math, Bill.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top