No I didn't. See Era Eriksson's original message for the correct
attributions.
By the way, re:
>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."
I was thinking more along the lines of "We've noticed that sci.physics
has attracted a disproportionate share of 'usenet kooks' in the past,
and we've also had trouble from time to time with people latching onto
the wrong meaning of 'approved' in the 'Approved:' header. So we'd like
you to add the following X-Disclaimer header to the main headers of your
article before you can consider it approved."
And I imagine a sci.physics faq author saying "yeah, there sure are a lot of
kooks who think they've found the unified field theory in an old newspaper,
etc, ... sure I'll add it, sounds like a good idea".
If the *.answers folks think that a particular faq *is* a "kook" article,
they might choose to phrase it in a more kook-friendly way: "We appreciate
your providing your information to the usenet community, but we've noticed
that it seems to be rather controversial, and ..."
And again, I imagine the response being "yeah it sure is controversial
those government conspirators are trying to knock me down and they keep
tweaking the electrodes in my brane and everyone on usenet is trying to
get me and I see why a disclaimer is necessary and thank you for respecting
my courage in bringing this IMPORTANT information to the net and here's
how to make money fast."
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved