1) I'm supporting your arguements.
2) I did not say a single thing about the disclaimer taking away anyones
rights.
3) Every country in the world is covered by laws guaranteeing freedom of
speech to it's citizens (as long as the government chooses to respect
those rights). If some kook disagrees with a faq about Gay sex having
been "Approved", tell them to go piss up a rope and ignore them; Freedom
of Speech applies to everybody regardless of gender or sexuality.
> > I disagree with having other maintainers vote on whether a FAQ is
> > accepted or not. The current practice seems fine, a faq is accepted
> > when the maintainer demonstrates the technical ability to properly
> > submit his/her FAQ.
> If you wanted *.answers to give some quality branding that is one
> way of doing it. Of course there is no reason why *.answers should.
> I am guilty of extending the argument now.
Quality branding? What are you on about now? All I stated was the
facts. The Approved header is granted to those who:
1) Add the required headers to your posting
2) Submit the posting (with headers) for approval
3) Have properly added the required headers to their posting.
> *rant-on*
> These kooks should stop using the net and return to their
> happy-go-lucky world on planet earth. But they are lurk in the
> networks nonetheless.
> *rant-off*
That's my thought exactly.
> > David himself stated that he was getting involved in flamewars because
> > of this and of course that raises the question of, why doesn't he just
> > send the kooks a form letter explaining the meaning of the approved
> > header and ignroe any further mail from them?
> He mentioned it caused him emotional damage of sorts. I have no idea
> what he went through but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that
> it is causing him considerable trouble.
The original author of my FAQ received death threats over the content of
the FAQ. I'd say that'd cause serious emotional damage, but he never
went around campaigning for special disclaimers, he just explained his
position and ignored the kooks.
BTW He's still alive and well.
> > David seems to feel that it's better to ask everybody to add the
> > disclaimer to their faq rather than risk hurting the feelings of the
> > select few for whom the disclaimer would add any real value.
> I would like to see David's rationale on how the disclaimer will
> prevent kooks from harassing him (if that's what they did).
So, it seems, would a lot of us.
> > It's also blatantly obvious when all the available material on the FAQ
> > approval process makes quite clear what the Approved header means.
> Yes. If you can post an article, find a newsgroup, and add the right
> headers you should be able to get it archived on *.answers. A bit
Right, you demonstrated the technical ability to properly submit your
post for approval.
> scary. I did think that the *.answers people at least had some
> internal "should we archive this" discussion. It seems they don't
That would open up the possibility of some spawn of satan, I mean
lawyer, sueing them if the accepted/rejected a FAQ and his clients
disagreed with. Since the "Approved" is awarded solely on technical
merit there is no such danger and thus no serious need for the
disclaimer.
-- Doug Herbert - CBS http://www.tradskin.org - Home of the Skinhead FAQ I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved