> Though I was being diplomatic in that review, I will say here
> that the "traditional" approach, if not Right, is certainly
> better or at least more deserving of the name "FAQ list."
> (In particular, the questions in the "contrived" form of
> FAQ list are often lacking in verisimilitude or a convincing
> feel of Frequency.)
My Copyright FAQ is part "traditional" part "contrived." The most
"traditional" approach is in part 3, where I respond to random questions
that I have observed to be frequently asked. The most "contrived" part is
part 2, where I provide a background in copyright law that makes it
unnecessary to reproduce the basics in almost every question in part 3.
Without the "contrived" part 2, I found that part 3 just generated a lot
more questions because it could not be understood.
-- Terry Carroll | "The invention provides means for continuously Santa Clara, CA | trapping sparrows and supplying a cat and carroll@tjc.com | neighborhood cats with a supply of sparrows." Modell delenda est | - U.S. Patent no. 4,150,505