> For the record, I am in favour of disclaimers, but only to FAQs that require
> them. FAQs that are quite technical probably wouldn't need them, and are not
> likely to be the subjectof harassment that David complains about.
I don't think anyone has brought this point up yet, but don't you
think its a little unfair to tell certain people they need a
disclaimer?
--begin parody of *.answers response
"Your faq looks like KooK bait.
You must add disclaimer header,
or play nice."
--end parody
I think what's really needed right now, not to sound like a broken
record, is a rationale of why this header would even keep KooKs at
bay. Mind you, most of us are assuming that's all it's there for.
On a similar note, as much as we appreciate David's volunteer work,
we too are volunteers. So let's not just feel the pangs of guilt
without some discussion.
[ or maybe you're an evil person who gets paid lots of money to
write faqs :-)]
-- Thamer Al-Herbish PGP public key: shadows@whitefang.com http://www.whitefang.com/pgpkey.txt [ The Secure UNIX Programming FAQ http://www.whitefang.com/sup/ ]
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved