FAQ Maintainers Mailing List: Re: disclaimer for *.answers

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BEC135.FE87E960
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To: "FAQ-Maintainers" <faq-maintainers@lists.consensus.com>
Subject: Re: disclaimer for *.answers
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:52:49 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

One of the physics FAQ items is a complaint about
an elementary idiocy committed in physics that
sci.math folk have debunked.

In case you missed the meaning, physicists are
trained to say some rather stupid things, things
that are absurd, and which the physics true believer
complainers will not subject to sci.math arbitration.

If you know any math, do you trully want it said
that there are such things as 'invariant space-time
coordinates' or that 'correct space-time coordinate
transform protocol' is something that makes polar
vectors non-existent?

Those are items the true believer physics fans rail
against, and the Einstein (1905) Absurdities piece
is an account of things you can see for yourself in
his intro to Special Relativity.

----------
> From: Thamer Al-Herbish <shadows@whitefang.com>
> To: FAQ-Maintainers <faq-maintainers@lists.consensus.com>
> Subject: Re: disclaimer for *.answers
> Date: Saturday, June 26, 1999 1:38 AM
>=20
> On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Andrew A Gill wrote:
>=20
> Just a quick note. David is doing this out of pure concern, and I
> realize that. I don't mean to act particularly absurd but I do have
> some concerns even with Andrew's response. And yes I know it is a
> small change.
>=20
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Thamer Al-Herbish
> > <shadows@whitefang.com> writes:
> > >There is one aspect of this header that is a bit distressing. It's
> > >almost like saying "*.answers will archive anything in a readable
> > >format." Surely you do look over FAQs to make sure they're
> > >worthwhile?
> >=20
> > 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?
>=20
> Yes I would imagine basic common sense would do for judging things.
> But I'm not a moderator and have never had trouble getting 3 FAQs in.
>=20
> > >I also agree with the poster who mentioned that non-controversial
> > >FAQs -- a technical one where you can't get controversial unless
d^

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BEC135.FE87E960
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To: "FAQ-Maintainers" <faq-maintainers@lists= .consensus.com>
Subject:=20 Re: disclaimer for *.answers
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:52:49=20 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: = Microsoft=20 Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: = text/plain;=20 charset=3DISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

----------
> From: Thamer = Al-Herbish <shadows@whitefang.com>
&g= t; To:=20 FAQ-Maintainers <faq-maintainers@lists= .consensus.com>
>=20 Subject: Re: disclaimer for *.answers
> Date: Saturday, June 26, = 1999 1:38=20 AM
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Andrew A Gill wrote:
> =
>=20 Just a quick note. David is doing this out of pure concern, and = I
>=20 realize that. I don't mean to act particularly absurd but I do = have
> some=20 concerns even with Andrew's response. And yes I know it is a
> = small=20 change.
>
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:13:33 -0700 (PDT) = Thamer=20 Al-Herbish
> > <shadows@whitefang.com>=20 writes:
> > >There is one aspect of this header that is a = bit=20 distressing. It's
> > >almost like saying "*.answers will = archive=20 anything in a readable
> > >format." Surely you do look over = FAQs to=20 make sure they're
> > >worthwhile?
> >
> = > I was=20 always under the impression that the news.answers folk = would
reject
>=20 > a FAQ if they felt that there was no need, but aside from that,=20 there's
> > not much that will cause a PIP to be = rejected. Would=20 you people accept
a
> > FAQ for alt.null?
>
> = Yes I=20 would imagine basic common sense would do for judging things.
> = But I'm=20 not a moderator and have never had trouble getting 3 FAQs in.
> =
>=20 > >I also agree with the poster who mentioned that=20 non-controversial
> > >FAQs -- a technical one where you = can't get=20 controversial unless
d^