I am immediately taking down my version of the F.A.Q. This is a
permanent change and is not open for discussion.
If you want an F.A.Q., I suggest that you either go with John
Fitzsimmons' version or create a new one at the Pricelessware site.
John Corliss said:I am immediately taking down my version of the F.A.Q. This is a
permanent change
and is not open for discussion.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Anti-semetic Jew said:Can you say...
PWN3D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Henk said:Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> schreef in
<snipped crap>
I think you do a lot of people in here a favor when you really
get a real life.
So, go back under your stone, and stay there.....
MikeA said:"semetic"?
You can not even spell!
John Corliss said:I am immediately taking down my version of the F.A.Q. This is a
permanent change and is not open for discussion.
Henk de Jong said:<snipped crap>
tonda said:
Andy said:<SFX: Cheers>
Mind you, anyone with a clue would have left a page at that address,
with a link to John F's FAQ
As per your usual style.
Any bets on how long 'til it's back?
I am relatively new to this forum and would like to state my opinion just as
many others around here do. This forum has the most acrimony of any I have
visited and since I don't know the whole history I will refrain from taking
any sides.
There are obviously some here who disagree with the definition of "freeware"
as defined by certain members and wish to discuss a variety of software they
deem fit as freeware. In addition there is some resentment towards the
authors of the Pricelessware website. I believe it has to do with the view
that these authors are trying to control the content and topics discussed on
this forum.
1) Who first developed this forum and what was their desired intention?
2) Could a second forum be started where the disagreements could be
discussed in more depth? Something like alt.comp.freeware.disagreements
there is some resentment towards the authors of the Pricelessware
website. I believe it has to do with the view that these authors
are trying to control the content and topics discussed on this
forum.
1) Who first developed this forum and what was their desired
intention?
2) Could a second forum be started where the disagreements could
be discussed in more depth? Something like
alt.comp.freeware.disagreements
3) Could another forum be created where dissenting members could
discuss different varieties of software that does not meet the
definition of pure "freeware"?
Here's the control message that created this group. You can think
of it as a type of charter.
As I said, he'd make an excellent spin doctor...not that anyone withVic, you should not represent it as a type of charter. The term
"charter" in this context means something specific. The slot where
a charter *could* have been put in the newgroup control is *empty*.
This group does not have a charter.
»Q« said:<news:3CZmb.101938$0Z5.64631@lakeread03>:
Susan Bugher currently maintains the pricelessware.org site on
behalf of a.c.f, and before Susan took over so much of the work
Genna Reeney did so. Both of them are highly respected here by
almost everyone.
It's true IMO that there is 'some resentment' of the
pricelessware.org site, /but/ that resentment seems to be limited to
a single poster, and he has not made the reasons for the resentment
clear at all. (He's the one who started the "PL promotes copyright
infringement" thread, and he is the one who's taken once again to
posting mini-floods which include spyware &c.) His sock-puppeting
tactics may make it seem that the resentment is not limited to one
poster, but AFAICT it is just him.
The group was proposed in 1995. Initial intention was misguided.
The proposal is available at Google,
<http://groups.google.com/[email protected]>.
Click 'Complete Thread' to view discussion. After discussion, the
group was created and immediately removed both because no sufficient
argument had been given in support of creation and because it was an
attempt to place a binaries group outside of alt.binaries.*
Despite removal, the group was propagated by quite a few servers,
and as spyware and adware became more prevalent people sought this
group out as a place where the wheat could be separated from the
chaff. (That's my impression of the group's growth during the
1990s - others may disagree).
A newgroup control message was sent in 1999, and there was no removal
which followed it - it was this 1999 message that gave the group
legitimacy (as much as any alt.* group can have, anyway). This control
was justified by existing traffic, and the intent was to make it clear
to server admins that they should add the group to their lists, making
propagation better.
Could it? Maybe.
Should it? Not IMO.
But /if/ such a thing is necessary or workable, the low-traffic
a.c.f.discussion might be used for that. a.c.f.d currently is a group
without clear purpose; its inception was as muddled as that of a.c.f.
a.c.f.d was never discussed in alt.config, and it was also removed
after being created, so it does not have the legitimacy a.c.f does. If
traffic in a.c.f.d warranted it, a new control message could be sent
after discussion here and in alt.config. If somebody wants to champion
that cause or a similar one, I'd at least urge waiting until January
2004 to try for it, when the PL 2004 process has been completed.
2) Could a second forum be started where the disagreements could be
discussed in more depth? Something like alt.comp.freeware.disagreements
3) Could another forum be created where dissenting members could discuss
different varieties of software that does not meet the definition of pure
"freeware"?
Vic, you should not represent it as a type of charter. The term
"charter" in this context means something specific. The slot where
a charter *could* have been put in the newgroup control is *empty*.
This group does not have a charter.
<news:3CZmb.101938$0Z5.64631@lakeread03>: [snip]2) Could a second forum be started where the disagreements could
be discussed in more depth? Something like
alt.comp.freeware.disagreements
Could it? Maybe.
Should it? Not IMO.
But /if/ such a thing is necessary or workable, the low-traffic
a.c.f.discussion might be used for that. a.c.f.d currently is a
group without clear purpose; its inception was as muddled as that
of a.c.f. a.c.f.d was never discussed in alt.config, and it was
also removed after being created, so it does not have the
legitimacy a.c.f does.
If traffic in a.c.f.d warranted it, a new
control message could be sent after discussion here and in
alt.config.
If somebody wants to champion that cause or a similar
one, I'd at least urge waiting until January 2004 to try for it,
when the PL 2004 process has been completed.
its about time. what happened, john-john? did a safe full of realityCorliss said:I am immediately taking down my version of the F.A.Q