At 01:14 AM -0500 12/13/01, Matthew Weigel wrote:
>A single 'definition' of the term(s), given from the point of view of a
>single martial art, has a very definite problem IMO.
Replace "martial art" by almost any subject of interest here, and the
statement remains true ...
>An answer de minimis that satisfies that would
>be, "please ask the newsgroup" - everyone would certainly be unhappy,
>at
>the least with a FAQ document refusing to answer a FAQ.
I have (for misc.health.diabetes) taken this approach to a few
questions -- very briefly state the variety of opinions and leave it at
that, without including the arguments. I suppose the idea was to warn
people of the controversy without repeating anything to inflame the
controversy.
However, I haven't needed to face this issue on any topic that I
consider particularly important. I'm another whose FAQ is driven by "is
it actually frequently asked", so some questions that qualify under
that criterion are unimportant by other criteria.
For example, the one I remember off hand deals with disposal of used
syringes ... gets emotions high in a hurry but doesn't affect the
actual understanding or treatment of diabetes, just a peripheral issue.
If I ever get into a really controversial question with more substance,
I'll probably look at doing it something like you're describing.
Edward Reid
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here
*************************************************************
[
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