> I reiterate my position -- I utterly refuse to give a single
>angstrom on this matter. Other, more effective techniques are
>already available, and the only ones that will be hurt are all NetCom
>users (since FAQs won't be left around nearly as long as they would
>have been, assuming they make it through at all), and all users
>everywhere else who have to deal with the dreckage and bletchery the
>NetCom unwashed masses cause.
In other words, you're thinking that list managers et al may
add .netcom.com to the list of domains whose users they don't want to
have to deal with?
>>Well if that's the case, why have FAQs at all. That's a pretty
>>pie-in-the-sky proposition, holding ISPs liable for the education of their
>>newbies.
> That is *precisely* what AOL is being held responsible for over
>in list-managers. If you don't want to hold anyone responsible for
>any of their users, feel free to continue to hold that opinion.
>However, you are in the minority, and until you change your mind,
>you'd better not complain about any AOL users.
At least my viewpoint on list-managers is that AOL isn't
_responsible_ for its users... but their overall behavior (which
will be influenced by AOL's actions) will affect how I treat
anything emerging from aol.com unless I have countervailing
information.
The situation with NetCom is that they are doing things
that actively _decrease_ the likelihood of their users being
educated. Now, they may be doing this in ignorance, but if not...
-Allen
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved