Re: NATHAN and the FAQ Dilemna

[PETEYBOY <PETEYBOY@prodigy.net>]

Paul Francis Gilbert wrote:
> 
> Joseph Lee <nuNOUBEgundam@netNOUBEcom.hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Paul Francis Gilbert <pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> spawned virtual particles writing:
> >: that without the consensus of the group, Nathan will not have the right to
> >: call his FAQ "The" comp.sys.apple2 FAQ. If he wants to call his FAQ
> 
> >Does it matter if it is the comp.sys.apple2 faq in name or not?  It's still
> >the one and only complete-up-to-date Apple II faq existing today that's
> >related to this newsgroup.
> 
> Well, at least you seem to have improved from your "Devil candied tongue"
> spams. The question is an important one: Nathan has been consistently
> breaking the newsgroup charter and the newsgroup rules as a whole. He
> continually defies it: He does not post a plain text version at regular
> intervals to the group, and he does not post a plain text version to
> news.answers as he is required to (and a "Look at this URL for the full
> FAQ" message can no in no way considered acceptable).

You know, it's like people forget that the whole FAQ thing is a
volunteer deal.  Nobody made Nathan the "FAQ Keeper".  He got a hold of
a copy of the as-then-existing FAQ, and volunteered to keep track of it,
update it, and post it to the group.  There are no "newsgroup rules" and
there may or may not be a comp.sys.apple2 charter.  Up until the time of
this incident, Nathan *was* posting copies of the complete FAQ to the
group.  If no one kept copies, that's their fault.  Nathan claims, and
even his opponents have agreed, that he has made significant additions
to the FAQ.  So, if Nathan wants his version of the FAQ copyrighted, no
one really can stop him from doing so, and waving this "You must step
down as the Keeper-of-the-FAQ" or "You must perform your duties as
Keeper-of-the-FAQ in accordance with usenet rules" crap is just that,
crap.

On the other hand, part of the FAQ was extant before Nathan became the
keeper, and some of the information in the FAQ was provided by folks
other than Nathan.  So if people want to get old copies of the FAQ,
compare them to Nathan's version, and re-write new sections starting
with that old copy (careful not to steal Nathan's work), and call it the
comp.sys.apple2 FAQ, they're welcome to do so as well.  We can have two,
or four, or ten people who keep the FAQ, and those of us in the group
can point to one or the other when someone asks a question

"Nathan's FAQ, available at blah.blah.blah, has an excellent section on
<<whatever>>"

"You should check Turley's FAQ, at blah.blah.blah: it's got a good
secion on <<some other thing>>"

It doesn't matter.  I have used Nathan's FAQ in the past, and it is
excellent, and I recommend it to whoever can use it.  If you've unfairly
been blocked from Nathan's site, maybe you can ask him to email you a
copy, or an appropriate section, or whatever: Nathan looks to be really
on the ball when he refers people to sections of the FAQ.

> 
> Despite this, some of you seem to be quite willing to suck up to him, and
> cheer him one. Another poster was right, I should keep in mind when posting
> that I'm dealing with morons.
> 
> >Nathan can call it what he wants, you can blast him for it all you want, but
> >it's still a great resource that he maintains.  If you don't like it, do your
> >own.
> 
> It's an alright FAQ, and he can call it "My Fucken Anti-Turley FAQ, And
> Fuck You'se Guys Who Can't Access it FAQ" for all I care. He just has no
> right to call it "The comp.sys.apple2" FAQ without our approval.

He can call it the comp.sys.apple FAQ with *my* approval.  I don't care
(Don't claim that all the c.s.a2 readership is part of *your* "our"). 
And you know what?  You can write a FAQ and call it the same, and I
approve of that, too.  Maybe with a little FAQ competition, all c.s.a2
readers will benefit!

> 
> If you don't agree, I don't suppose you'd see any harm in me making a new
> drink and calling it "Coca Cola". Or perhaps making a new computer and
> calling it the "Apple //"? If you honestly think there's nothing wrong with
> this, then man have I got some prime Florida real-estate for you! ;-)
> 
> [Admittedly, it seems to be the current most up to date FAQ, with new
> FAQ projects starting, we WILL have an alternative set of FAQS, which may
> at least have maintainers not as calleous of obeying newsgroups charters
> as Nathan certainly appears to be].

Then why don't people just get on with it and work on this, and leave us
all alone to read about real Apple // issues?

P.S.  It's not like I trust any of the angry anti-Nathan crowd to keep a
free and open FAQ, either.  You guys promise to proclaim it public
domain?  Or will you write crap about how certain people are disallowed
from copying it in whole or part, or whatever?  I mean, as soon as your
FAQ gets more up-to-date than Nathan's, will it suddenly be
"comp.sys.apple2 FAQ (c) Turley", or whatever?  We shall see...