I was not able to read your recent email to me. Read on for the
reasons why and what you can do to contact me.
SPAM is a terrible thing which has invaded the net as of late. Every
day I receive between 10 and 30 spam emails, many of which are very
long and/or contain uuencoded pictures or attachments or other CRAP
which, unfortunately, sits in my mailbox all day since I read mail at
night.
I am billed by netcom for all this spamola piling up in my box and I
just can't afford it anymore, so I have had to resort to a draconian
solution.
All messages sent to me > 150 lines are automatically deleted from my
inbox immediately upon receipt. If you are a legitimate correspondent,
please contact me with a shorter message and I will tell you how you
can get your message past the spam-killer. Your message is appended
below for your convenience.
If you are a spammer, forget it. Your worthless spam is being bounced
back to you below for your enjoyment and I hope you choke on it.
> From FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com Thu Apr 24 11:44:26 1997
> Return-Path: <FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com>
> Received: from mail.zocalo.net (mail3.zocalo.net [157.22.1.19]) by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom)
> id LAA20235; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:44:23 -0700
> Received: from lists.consensus.com (lists.consensus.com [157.22.240.8]) by mail.zocalo.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA28855; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-Id: <199704241836.LAA18220@kudo20.kudonet.com>
> From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva)
> Subject: Style/History of FAQs (was Re: The FAQ Manual of Style)
> To: FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: Bulk
> X-Listserver: ListSTAR v1.1 by StarNine Technologies, a Quarterdeck Company
> Reply-To: <FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com>
> Errors-To: <FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com>
> X-List-Subscribe: <mailto:FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com?subject=subscribe>
> X-List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com?subject=unsubscribe>
> X-List-Help: <mailto:FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com?subject=help>
>
> 49970424 AA1 Hail Satan!
>
>
> re _The FAQ Manual of Style_
>
> Pamela Greene:
> #># seen its cover and table of contents. From what I can tell from
> #># those, it's a pretty good manual for creating FAQs, although it seems
> #># to emphasize "corporate" FAQs more than run-of-the-mill volunteer
> #># informational FAQs. (Section titles include "FAQs can be good for
> #># business," "Leading site visitors to your FAQ," and "Using your FAQ to
> #># sell advertising," and examples are mainly from FAQs such as Kodak's
> #># and SPRYNET's.)
>
> this is what I was previously characterizing as the 'nontheoretical
> corporate creep' of FAQ development. it makes some sense that technical
> organizations would take off from the "FAQ as information file" and
> use their expertise in the field to produce a reference guide. note
> that this does vary from forum-centered 'orientation guide', designed
> to answer questions succinctly and with some thoroughness in areas that
> are more easily defined or consolidated, or the 'noise-reduction tool',
> used to dissuade redundant conversation to the exclusive of dedicated
> and continuing research.
>
> as long as the organization makes their production of the text known,
> I think this is a positive development. the danger is when 'generic
> FAQs' begin to appear produced by corporate sponsors which
> surreptitiously market a product in the guise of a 'FAQ'. this would
> be the final desecration of FAQ into 'media propaganda device',
> something which does already occur within theoretical fields (oriented
> to a particular perspective which the editor/author considers to be
> 'more correct' or 'authoritative' for whatever reason without so
> identifying their bias, if they are even aware of it themselves).
>
>
> #># There are other, more general topics covered as well, such as
> #># attributes of good FAQs and how to keep FAQs up to date; I don't
> #># know the "spin" on those.
>
> it would be great to get a thumbnail sketch of the main attributes
> so outlined. I think there is a 'FAQ on FAQs' in Usenet, but several
> of these files should be compared and contrasted (at least referenced!)
> in this forum so as to assist FAQ-makers who subscribe.
>
>
> Danny R. Faught:
> #> ...it actually seems to be a good treatment on the subject.
>
> have you seen many such treatments? could you compare/contrast?
>
>
> #> he was able to make the venture financially viable because he also covers
> #> "Web FAQs", which most often means commercial web sites that have a
> #> FAQ of their own. So I tolerate the web diversions because he does
> #> also do a good job of covering each topic from a Usenet point of view.
>
> it is logical to presume that Usenet is not the only forum or channel
> of communication within which questions might become frequently asked.
> web sites, especially corporate, which present a subject for public
> reference and provide a channel (eddress) for feedback/query could
> generate a 'FAQ' in the technical sense of 'questions frequently asked
> about this product in the field'. they could also produce a FAQ in
> the more degenerated sense of 'reference information about our product'.
>
>
> #> it's been a worthwhile read. He obviously did a lot of research....
>
> if you'd like to say what you found valuable about his advice to
> FAQ-makers (design, style tips, etc.), I would appreciate it.
>
>
> Russell Shaw <russellshaw@delphi.com> (the author the book):
> #...The FAQ Manual of Style came out last year. I'm a veteran journalist
> #who has covered the Internet from more of a commercial than a
> #participatory perspective.
>
> #I've gotten some heat from Usenet "purists" for the commercial tone of
> #this book. The publisher felt that there was already a communal,
> #information-sharing culture about how to write FAQs in the Usenet
> #community, but no institutional body of knowledge about these tools
> #existed in the ".com" Web world.
>
> there is a 'FAQ on FAQs' of which I am aware. did you utilize this in
> preparation for your book? were there more than one of them in the
> Internet which we may somehow access? the more varied advice we can
> come by as regards structure and content the better as I see it. that
> kind of information is particularly valuable within this forum.
>
>
> #...some Usenet folks have criticized it for being too Web-centric.
> #I suppose that could be expected; many folks on this side of cyberspace
> #feel that the "commercial" Web folks have usurped what was theirs
> #(the FAQ format) and via cynically motivated means, taken this tool
> #of community knowledge and adapted it for their own purposes.
>
> not only that, but the Internet is notoriously feudish, and there exists
> some great deal of anguish over the diversity which it makes possible
> (as regards data and source as well as perspective and slant). that one
> eventually finds it impossible to be everywhere at once or absorbing all
> the information on a topic from substantive sources makes rivalry and
> infighting an inevitability.
>
> your paragraph above is why I have entered into this conversation. does
> *anyone* know the historical original of the term 'FAQ' and its initial
> usage as compared to what it has come to mean? I figured that this could
> have been a basic question covered in your book, for example, and was
> curious.
>
>
> #The feeling seems to be that Usenet FAQs are the only "real" FAQs, and
> #Web "FAQs," -- especially if they are designed to help sell a product --
> #aren't really FAQs because any altruistic intent is of secondary
> #importance at best.
>
> to be expected, as you said above, but I think it is illogical to claim
> that Usenet has any 'control' or 'authority' in this area. the logical
> argument is that only FORUMS have authority here inasmuchas they have a
> TIMESCALE by which 'frequently' could be meaningful. as I said above,
> however, this bears little on whether an organization has created or
> been exposed to corporate channels wherein discussion about its product
> may have occurred (in which case 'frequent' again becomes meaningful).
>
>
> #...These Web FAQs -- although they are written by people on the
> #payroll of the company the FAQs are posted on -- perform a valuable
> #service. If I have a problem with a product, I'd be likely to
> #chec both the Web and Usenet FAQs. These commercial FAQs perform a
> #service.
>
> yes, they are REFERENCE files on their products. more often than not
> the term 'FAQ' is utilized solely on the basis of its resemblance to
> the descriptor 'FACTS', attempting to persuade (often legitimately,
> but not always so) the reader to think that the source is reliable
> and is not attempting to sway hir to a particular point of view as
> regards the subject matter (be that product or rational paradigm).
>
>
> #My function was to tell these FAQ writers how to perform this
> #service -- i.e., write and maintain FAQ lists -- in a way that's more
> #beneficial to their customers and their clients.
>
> this is a valuable reference as it provides design and content advice
> which enables clear, honest communication about the subject matter
> or forum of its reference. I hope that more attention will be paid
> to the clarification of the term 'FAQ' and the criteria of its usage,
> such that it can stand for something more than 'advertizement' or
> 'propaganda file', however.
>
>
> #Not dismissing the import of Usenet FAQs, I used input from this
> #community, and specificaly, from many FAQ-maintainers members. I found
> #this to be a vital part of the book, but you may notice I devoted little
> #if any attention to the WAY in which the lists should be maintained, or
> ~~~~~~~~~
> #the tools used in maintaining them. That's because thhere already are
> #resources on the subject. I suppose the book Pam is assembling will be
> #of great benefit in this area.; I'll want to read it.
>
> I'm unsure to what this refers. if you mean the FAQs themselves,
> typically they are called 'files' even while they MAY contain lists
> of questions and responses (they don't always do this -- some are
> really reference files attempting to cover a specific subject like
> an overview, similar to what might appear in a book and not in any
> way a question-answer format).
>
>
> #Rather than bring up tools or structure, I thought it would be more
> #useful to discuss the specific points the FAQ (Usenet or Web) deals
> #with, and how to write and organize them in a cogent, flowing manner of
> #benefit to the outside world (customers or otherwise)....
>
> then it sounds like your aim was quite specific. sounds great.
>
>
> #...a chapter is devoted to Usenet groups that deal with the subject.
>
> then perhaps you can provide some idea of the history of FAQs with
> respect to Usenet, inclusive of whether the term developed therein,
> if it migrated there, and what it originally meant. thanks.
>
> tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
> nagasiva
> --------
> editor, alt.satanism FAQ, alt.magick FAQ; contributor to a few other
> esoteric FAQs and REFs, cyberlibrarian of esoteric materials
>