I was always under the impression that the news.answers folk would reject
a FAQ if they felt that there was no need, but aside from that, there's
not much that will cause a PIP to be rejected. Would you people accept a
FAQ for alt.null?
>I also agree with the poster who mentioned that non-controversial
>FAQs -- a technical one where you can't get controversial unless
>you're exceptionally degenerated -- shouldn't be forced to do this.
On the contrary, this is where the disclaimer is most necessary. For
example, the sci.physics FAQ was--uh--wrong. (does anyone have a FAQ
about the erroneous sci.physics FAQ?)
Plus, once a FAQ gets approved, you don't have to get reapproval unless
you change the headers or seriously change the contents of the FAQ.
So theoretically, you could get a FAQ approved that includes this lines:
printf() has the form
printf("text string %s %d %f", string a, int b, float c)
and imediately change it to:
This is a death threat to Guy Fawkes.
I am going to [description of murder]
This is why they want to add the disclaimer. I'll add it, eventually.
|Andrew A. Gill |I posted to Silent-Tristero and|
|<fruadman_trumpet_fanfare1@juno.com> |all I got was this stupid sig! |
|alt.tv.simpsons CBG-FAQ author | |
| (Report all obscene mail to Le Maitre Pots)|
|<http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/7399> Temporary sig:
Eventually may be tonight, actually.
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved