acf webring going up for *ADOPTION*

  • Thread starter Thread starter status
  • Start date Start date
who wants to take it over ? i started it as a service for acf but
don't have the time to maintain it accordingly; too much time on my
hands.

http://q.webring.com/hub?ring=acfwebring

Upto 19 members now.
Click to expand...

Aaahhh, you don't mean this for real, do you?

First starting something against the opinions of the *real* majority in
this group, keeping up a discussion that was quite useless, letting
others think that this 'ring' is a good thing to join, and now you are
telling me that you haven't enough time on your hands to maintain
this??? Just after 3 weeks (at the most)?

Why didn't you think of this *before* you started this. It's a very
good thing that you think *before* you act......
 
Henk de Jong said:
on 5-11-2003 :

Aaahhh, you don't mean this for real, do you?

First starting something against the opinions of the *real* majority in
this group, keeping up a discussion that was quite useless, letting
others think that this 'ring' is a good thing to join, and now you are
telling me that you haven't enough time on your hands to maintain
this??? Just after 3 weeks (at the most)?

Why didn't you think of this *before* you started this. It's a very
good thing that you think *before* you act......
Click to expand...



Because I started it as a *service* to acf (its been talked about for
several years if you do a google search) and would like to see it
continue. I'm not backing off on my opinions of the FAQ which is not
binding on the webring (because it is not the charter of acf or its
bylaws and not to mention the fact that the FAQ is an FAQ for software
and not an FAQ for websites that contain the software) I'm just giving
the ring up for adoption because I don't have time to maintain it (as
I stated in my OP initially on the topic). I did something obviously
FAQ diehards and others talked about at one time or another but never
followed thru on a subject which (IMO) goes against the *value* or
*integrity* of the FAQ as well as the *united opinions* of the so
called majority of the FAQ diehards. The only thing the FAQ diehards
ever agreed on was the FAQ and nothing more. The FAQ diehards do
*NOT* represent a clear majority of this group nor should the FAQ be
used as a guide to admit websites into the webring becauese the
webring is based on a related websites and not one or anothers
opinions of whats freeware and what is not.

I'll pass it along to whoever wants it or whoever the group nominates.
If the people of acf feels it should go to an acf faq diehard, that's
fine.

One stipulation is that in order for this ring to be adopted the
adopting website must be a member of the webring.
 
(e-mail address removed) ([email protected]) wrote in
Because I started it as a *service* to acf (its been talked about
for several years if you do a google search) and would like to see
it continue.
Click to expand...

You started it as some misguided effort to "fight" against the FAQ.
You cannot even mention your webring without mentioning the FAQ in
the same breath.
I'm not backing off on my opinions of the FAQ which
is not binding on the webring (because it is not the charter of
acf or its bylaws and not to mention the fact that the FAQ is an
FAQ for software and not an FAQ for websites that contain the
software)
See?

I'll pass it along to whoever wants it or whoever the group
nominates.
Click to expand...

Just disband the thing. But don't forget to mention the FAQ
again....
If the people of acf feels it should go to an acf faq diehard,
that's fine.
Click to expand...

The people of a.c.f vocally opposed the existence of your webring;
you discounted opinions based on your notion that the opinions of
"faq diehards" are invalid.
 
»Q« said:
(e-mail address removed) ([email protected]) wrote in


You started it as some misguided effort to "fight" against the FAQ.
You cannot even mention your webring without mentioning the FAQ in
the same breath.


Just disband the thing. But don't forget to mention the FAQ
again....


The people of a.c.f vocally opposed the existence of your webring;
you discounted opinions based on your notion that the opinions of
"faq diehards" are invalid.
Click to expand...



Show me the thread where the acf faq is a binding document; is it the
official charter or bylaws of acf ?
 
(e-mail address removed) ([email protected]) wrote in
Show me the thread where the acf faq is a binding document; is it the
official charter or bylaws of acf ?
Click to expand...

I don't know wtf you are on about here.

Again I urge you simply to disband your misnamed webring. EOT for me.
 
John Fitzsimons said:
< snip >

It would have been better had he gracefully changed the name of the
ring.
Click to expand...

Say perhaps even just to, cfwebring. Still an option? I don't know what's
technically involved, having never run or participated in a webring.
 
Back
Top