Re: The [FAQ] wars, an unbiased analysis.

From: Roy <roy@the-isles.demon.co.uk>

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0000

Seriously tho - I reckon both people should post FAQs if they think them to be of
any help. An extra two seconds spent dowloading two FAQs hardly bothers me, and if
they benefit then others then fair-enough.

I think more emphasis in this NG should be on discussing aspects of the Hobby rather
than aspects of the NG itself.

Jeez, I'm being far too tolerant of people at the moment...

ROY
www.the-isles.demon.co.uk

Greg Lindahl wrote:

> ozzymandias@bigfoot.NOSPAM.com (JAPH) writes:
>
> > Ok, on a serious note, Benjamin really has hit the nail on the head. Something
> > should be done about the multi-FAQ situation. The real problem here is that
> > both Greg and Ken firmly believe that they are right. And the truth is they
> > both have valid points. I have exchanged email with the two of them, and
> > contrary to popular belief, they are both reasonable men. Its a shame we all
> > cant put aside pride for a moment and do whats best for the group.
>
> What is best for the group? That's the question.
>
> Actually Ken's FAQ has now nearly converged to be the same as
> mine. There used to be 2 major differences: recommend websites and
> attitude about advertising. However, the advertising recommendations
> are actually fairly similar and always have been (despite all the
> flammage), and Ken recently changed his recommended websites.
>
> So, what's the difference?
>
> -- g

References

Re: The [FAQ] wars, an unbiased analysis.
ozzymandias@bigfoot.NOSPAM.com (JAPH)
Mon, 21 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The [FAQ] wars, an unbiased analysis.
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0000