> So as to provide an assumption as to an immediate consensus,
> I will make the following proposal:
> 1) Any FAQ may have a counter-FAQ.
I always thought this was the case. This gets discussed in various
newsgroups--perhaps not necessarily to "counter" the pre-existing FAQ,
but to provide info not already covered (a newsgroup FAQ vs. subject FAQ)
> 2) The *.answers moderation team should be able to require for
> approval, *IF* they so choose (in the case of controversial FAQs) that
> the maintainer insert an explicit disclaimer noting that though the FAQ
> is posted to *.answers and approved, this does not mean that the
> moderators agree with the content.
Bwa ha ha ha ha!!! As if the moderation team weren't busy enough!!
> Is there any way to *autolink* the posting of a FAQ, so that any
> time a FAQ is posted, the counterFAQ is posted as a followup?
Hoo boy--wadda way to piss someone off!!! Be happy enough that the
archive names will put FAQs in the same subdirectories!!
Lani Teshima-Miller (teshima@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.edu) "Sea Hare" o/ /_/_/
UH School of Library & Info Studies. "Whatever the cost of our o|<0_0>------*
libraries, the price is cheap compared to that of an ignorant \=^-| |_| |
nation." -Walter Cronkite [R.a.b.bit--FAQ Maintainer: "Think Ink!"] \_B}\_B}
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved