In my experience the only thing more exasperating than extended debates on
an actual relevant subject (like 'how should a FAQ be formatted' on a FAQ
maintainer's list) is content-free META-postings devoted to describing,
deprecating, or trivializing the topics of others. In particular, I do not
see how the list's purpose is served by Denis's long and somewhat
supercilious Q:A: "summary."
Tom, Matthew, Sam, Ed (and others) and I may not all agree, but we have
posted arguments that may give other readers legitimate food for thought
when it comes to creating or maintaining their own FAQs.
It stands to reason that not every reader will care about this topic; the
customary fix for that problem is to skip reading until something comes
along that one does care about, or to start a new topic if there's something
else appropriate to discuss.
If no (or very few) topics discussed on the maintainer's list are of
interest to a member, it's quite reasonable to uns*b. After all, the whole
thing is archived at
http://www.faqs.org/faq-maintainers/mail-archive/
(note, monsieur Holub, how a good URL hyperlink looks in text!) and one can
easily keep up at intervals or search for a specific subject.
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved