> chill out. people write books for money. and their motivation is very
> similar to what propels people to write FAQs at the root: interest in a
> subject, with a potential monetary reward on the side.
News to me, I wrote the FAQ I maintain as a public service without
expectation of getting money back for it. I would not be surprised that many
other FAQ maintainers had the same reason for starting their respective FAQ.
> look, I'm proposing extremely tiny transaction charges associated with
> retrieval. This *is* going to happen in a few months or a few years. And
> people like you will look kind of silly ranting against it.
Now who is branding whom? I wasn't ranting, trust me my rants are far longer
and much more verbose. What I was pointing out was my point of view. Namely
that if the simple act of *reading* my FAQ costs people money and that I am
getting a cut of that money, then that is the day I stop putting it out. Making
money is *not* what I got into the FAQ game for.
> chill out, dear sir. NONE OF THESE STANDARDS ARE MANDATORY. if you can
> get into it, fine. if you can't no problem. but don't be SUCH A GROUCH
> about people who are trying to kickstart the future!
I am being a grouch because I am getting sick of people "kickstarting the
future" a) in my mailbox and b) in such a forceful manner. Scant mention has
been made of the mandatoriness or otherwise of these formats and quite strong
assertions that those not adopting the formats are somehow deficient have been
made. Can you perhaps now see why I might get grouchy about that?
> excuse me, but you are flaming me for proposing exactly what you suggest.
No, I am encouraging you to do what you suggest.
> are you always this grouchy, or do you just play a Grouch on the net? <g>
Normally I am a very easy going type who doesn't comment much. But this
thing has been going on for too long in such a zealous manner that it is
annoying me. Especially when I see assertions that people not adopting the new
formats are being lazy, or whiny, or silly.
As I happen to be one of those people not about to adopt the new formats for
good reasons this tends to irrtate me. Especially given that I have *good*
reasons for not doing so.
> Seems to me only Jef Poskanzer has ever flamed me this much before on
> $'s and FAQs. Sometimes, a criticism by a scoundrel is the same as a
> compliment by a gentleman.
*sigh* Next assertion about my character you care to make?
Now as a peice of advice kindly learn a little about suggesting proposals
*tactfully* and go away and draft your proposed new format somewhere else. Come
back when you have a finished proposal and *then* propose it to us again
listing the advantages of this format.
That way we hopefully won't get screeds of arguement over which methodology
is better, whose favourite format standard is better and other associated
stuff. All us grouchy types will then have is a format to look at and then
decide whether we want to change to it or not.
Philip
--
Philip R. Banks Syntax: mail < banks_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz > @@@@@/|
@@@@/#|
@@@/##|
Fate protects fools, little children and ships named Enterprise. @@/---|
---Commander Riker, ST:TNG 'Contagion' @/ |
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved