Well, I'm probably a hard-liner, but my feeling is that since FAQ
list maintainers do their work out of, as you say, a "commendable
public spirit of providing free information," *no* complaints are
legitimate. (Dental health of gift horses, and all that.)
Suggestions are fine and are welcome, but complaints strike me as
being exactly as valid as those from children who don't get what
they want from Santa Claus.
Certainly, FAQ list maintainers should be asked to conform to
the established, de facto standards of how Usenet works, but the
question is, where do you draw the line? There are some really,
really deficient newsreading environments out there, some written
by clueless persons whose definition of "modern" involves
flouting most of the old, de facto standards. If an FAQ list
maintainer can legitimately be asked to revamp a list or the way
it's posted in order to accommodate some least-common-denominator
newsreading environment, what's to keep some whiner from insisting
that FAQ lists should be printed and physically mailed to
underprivileged readers who don't have access to the net at all?
> My preferred solution on misc.education...
> is to keep a large stock of SHORT FAQ files which I post
> as specific replies (newsgroup replies, mail replies, or both, as appropriate)
> when the frequently asked questions come up.
That can be a lot of work!
More power to you.
Steve Summit
scs@eskimo.com
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved