Re: Here's a load of wrong info

[bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major)]

In article <61ejt3$306$1@darla.visi.com>, nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) wrote:

> In article <01bcd37c$eb881220$1720460c@system1>,
> Dan Yertzell <Dan-Yertzell@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >we can upload here once a week or so until the current "Keeper of the FAQ"
> >either relinquishes control of his or grows up.
> 
>    Gee, when I first posted something newer than this last year, a
> bunch of flaming idiots (curious, they're the same bunch of idiots
> that'll take issues straight to emailing sysadmins and then posting to
> the group withOUT bothering to email the person in question first. You
> wanna know why csa2 is so full of flames, THEY started this round)
> complained it was way out of date and needed serious attention.

In *this* case, Nathan, having a FAQ to go by in some shape or form is
better than having access to no FAQ at all--which is what *you* would have
everyone do.  We're simply NOT going to be at your mercy anymore.  

This recently-posted FAQ is the original one I remember seeing spotted
somewhere on the web and apparently someone else found it as well.  Good
for them!

As for emailing you personally regarding the restriction issue, I doubt
anyone would have received a reply different from the wording you put on
your restriction site.  Please try and take the hint that's implied, here: 
people are SICK of hearing your broken record over and over again.  Why
would anyone want to communicate with you on a personal email basis, only
to get those same sentences repeated to them over and over???  You're not
even restricting the site to those "in question" any longer, (as if that
was legit), but entire, unrelated thousands of people who don't even know
who you are or why you would do this.

> 
>    May we see some hints of honesty and complain about this version
> also by some of the same folks? If all you're gonna do is spread
> wrong information, I think some apologies are in order.

Again, having a FAQ is better than having NO FAQ at all.  No one owes you
any sort of apology for ANYTHING.  Personally, I never complained one bit
about the original FAQ anyway--it's a document that can be updated without
a lot of fuss, and much of the info about the computers systems (hardware,
etc.) themselves has not changed and wouldn't be changed, for the simple
reason that they are computers that are no longer made.

-- 
--bj
Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984
Automatic reply will not work; please send reply to:  bjbear@ibm.net