New people: here are links to the *F.A.Q.*

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Corliss
  • Start date Start date
Blinky the Shark wrote in
The guy that wrote the nonFAQ had been here a week (and came in pissing
and moaning about something, IIRC). The real FAQs have evolved over a
span of years, and two actual *contributors* of long standing have kept
them. Do the math, Bill.
Click to expand...

2 months, and the thing I was pissing and moaning about was the unnecessary
abusing of newbies -by yourself as well as others-, which is what I'm
*still* moaning about.
 
John F.,
Click to expand...

Hi Bill,
You need to (re?)read the alternative FAQ and then contemplate both
the message and the gently satirical style. Then read your last two
posts and decide where "dopey" and "childish" might be more applicabe.
Click to expand...
Your FAQ offers some valuable guidance but it would benefit a great
deal from incorporating some of the points being made in the
alternative FAQ.
Click to expand...

As you well know I am happy to listen to suggestions about the FAQ.
Some I act on and some I don't. The point of the anti-FAQ was to
attack posters here and as a put down to the work that JC and I
have done.

With such a negative focus it is hardly any encouragement to
consider anything in it as in any way helpful.

Regards, John.
 
John Fitzsimons wrote in
Click to expand...
The anti-FAQ was born because I got mightily pissed off about newbies
being gang-banged by the more "established" members of ACF.
Click to expand...

< snip >

Well, if comments such as "gang-banged by the more "established"
members of ACF" isn't a "pointless sneering attack" then I guess our
definitions differ.

Regards, John.
 
As you well know I am happy to listen to suggestions about the FAQ.
Some I act on and some I don't.
Click to expand...

Wow...you just summed up the philosophy of Lu Traan.

--
Tiger

"Zero is where the fun starts
There is too much counting everywhere else."
- Hafiz
 
John Fitzsimons wrote in
Well, if comments such as "gang-banged by the more "established"
members of ACF" isn't a "pointless sneering attack" then I guess our
definitions differ.
Click to expand...

Piontless sneering counterattack, I think you'll find. And therein lies
the difference.
 
John Fitzsimons wrote in
The point of the anti-FAQ was to
attack posters here and as a put down to the work that JC and I
have done.
Wrong.

With such a negative focus it is hardly any encouragement to
consider anything in it as in any way helpful.
Click to expand...

Please yourself.
 
Wow...you just summed up the philosophy of Lu Traan.
Click to expand...

Well, no *wonder* his FAQ is crippled -- I have to save it locally (like
Hamstering with Xnews) before I can access it *offline*. POS.
 
Your FAQ offers some valuable guidance but it would benefit a great
deal from incorporating some of the points being made in the
alternative FAQ.
Click to expand...

Good points Bill.
 
Blinky the Shark said:
The guy that wrote the nonFAQ had been here a week (and came in pissing
and moaning about something, IIRC). The real FAQs have evolved over a
span of years, and two actual *contributors* of long standing have kept
them. Do the math, Bill.
Click to expand...

If only it were a question of math -- or simple arithmetic. Sigh.

BillR.
 
Good points Bill.
Click to expand...

And, therefore, vice versa. But of course, this isn't about facts,
it's about pissy point-scoring.

So why don't you all get together, knock up your own custom FAQs and
combine them all into one big one - then that way we can at least hope
that every time someone posts a FAQ pointer, we won't have all this
bullshit.

Regards,
 
The guy that wrote the nonFAQ had been here a week (and came in pissing
and moaning about something, IIRC). The real FAQs have evolved over a
span of years, and two actual *contributors* of long standing have kept
them. Do the math, Bill.
Click to expand...

Oh, are we back to the list of qualifications that one must have to
participate here? Qualifications that you set and only you and a
select few meet.

This is an unmoderated NG, and I hope it will stay that way: No
approval from the "regulars" (aka Control Freaks) needed to post.
 
»Q« wrote in
The anti-FAQ was born because I got mightily pissed off about
newbies being gang-banged by the more "established" members of
ACF. [snip]
For the record, I don't spend time criticising others.
Click to expand...

Saying that "'established' members of ACF" gang-bang newbies
seems an awful lot like criticism, though.
Click to expand...

Fair cop. That was criticism, right enough.
Let me rephrase then: I don't really want to spend time
criticising others, but can be found doing it in the midst of an
argument. Better?
Click to expand...

Ah, but this is an "argument" that never ends in a.c.f. If one
really wants to spend time criticizing others, one jumps in. If
not, not. Some people want to badly enough that they put up
webpages to do it. ;)
 
On 8 Sep 2003 19:25:27 GMT, RE: Re: New people: here are links to the
Click to expand...
Oh, are we back to the list of qualifications that one must have to
participate here?
Click to expand...

< snip >

Nope. As you are aware Blinky was talking about the FAQs for this
newsgroup. Not about participating here.

< XNews groupie mode on>

But then you knew that didn't you ? :-)

< XNews groupie mode off >

If someone is going to write a worthwhile FAQ for a particular
newsgroup then they should be part of that newsgroup for quite a
while before doing so IMO.

An FAQ that isn't specifically about a particular newsgroup however
does not need that however.

Regards, John.
 
John Fitzsimons wrote in
If someone is going to write a worthwhile FAQ for a particular
newsgroup then they should be part of that newsgroup for quite a
while before doing so IMO.
Click to expand...

AHA! I *KNEW* it would all boil down to the same old shit. What you're
saying, then, is that my opinions and words are valueless because I
haven't been on ACF as long as you have? I should venerate you and abase
my worthless self to your superior knowledge and time-serving skills?

Well **** that, frankly.

There are other ways of gaining knowledge than by logging onto ACF. I
avoided usenet for *years* because it seemed to me that the signal-to-
noise ratio was low. It was only recently that I had a look at ACF again
and found that it had become useful; I came because Henk de Jong, and SOS
both referred to the NG and I respect both of them tremendously for the
work that they do. Also, I have yet to see either of them pissing and
moaning about how NG newbies don't know their place, so extra props to
them for that.

I've been on the net since 94; I was running a freeware site:

<PIMP>
http://freeware.stalkingsheep.co.uk/
</PIMP>

....for well over a year before I ever bothered firing up a newsreader;
and many other sites before that....often involving software.

Yes, membership of ACF over a long period of time *can* give you detailed
knowledge about freeware. Conversely, there seem to be some people who
have been here for years without learning a damn thing.

I know things that you don't know, you know things that I don't know.
Pooling knowledge and helping people is what I'm here for.

If you expect to be worshipped just because you're a time-server,
however, you're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest on the
wrong continent.
 
If you expect to be worshipped just because you're a time-server,
however, you're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest on the
wrong continent.
Click to expand...

Back when I was a newbie, I also didn't know about the "observe and
learn" rule, and jumped right in after (surprise!) observing and
learning. I did so because I was a little afraid of this new medium
and all those strangers. If you're new, you are advised to do this
because it takes a bit to learn what the different threads are about.
In ACF, it doesn't take long because we're not talking about social
issues most of the time but in some groups it can take longer. So I'd
advise you to leave your abrasiveness at home where it belongs and
jump in when you have something to ask or contribute rather than
simply to bitch about the group. At the moment, nobody's really
interested in your opinion of the group because you have no track
record here to show that your opinion is valid.
 
wrote in
Back when I was a newbie, I also didn't know about the "observe and
learn" rule, and jumped right in after (surprise!) observing and
learning.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I did have a 2-week "observe and learn" period. I
just choose not to subscribe to the "I've been here longer...worship me"
attitude that some of you guys seem to have. Are you here to pool
knowledge and help people or are you here to start a new religion, with
the time-servers as high priests?
Pur-leeeeze.
I did so because I was a little afraid of this new medium
and all those strangers. If you're new, you are advised to do this
because it takes a bit to learn what the different threads are about.
In ACF, it doesn't take long because we're not talking about social
issues most of the time but in some groups it can take longer.
Click to expand...

"It takes a bit to learn what the different threads are about. In ACF, it
doesn't take long"
I observe a lack of consistency there. You'd be better off pointing out
that an in-depth knowledge of freeware takes time, which it does. ACF,
I'd counter, is not the source of all that knowledge, however.
So I'd advise you to leave your abrasiveness at home where it belongs
and jump in when you have something to ask or contribute rather than
simply to bitch about the group.
Click to expand...

My abrasiveness was nicely tucked away in the corner until Mr. Fitzsimons
referred to me as "childish" and "dopey". In a way, I suppose it is a
bit childish of me to be wasting time on this....but less childish than
launching the initial salvo IMO.

Also, in a way, this is a contribution to the group - some of you guys
are too up yourselves for your own good and need deflating from time to
time.

Also, I'd like to point out -again- that these posts are *responses*.
At the moment, nobody's really interested in your opinion of the group
Click to expand...

No? Why did you address comments to me then?
because you have no track record here to show that your opinion is
valid.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of people I've helped in my time here. And that's enough
for me.
 
John Fitzsimons wrote in

AHA! I *KNEW* it would all boil down to the same old.... What you're
saying, then, is that my opinions and words are valueless because I
haven't been on ACF as long as you have? I should venerate you and abase
my worthless self to your superior knowledge and time-serving skills?
snip...

If you expect to be worshipped just because you're a time-server,
however, you're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest on the
wrong continent.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Also, I'd like to point out -again- that these posts are *responses*.
Click to expand...

You have jumped into the middle of a longstanding flamewar, adding heat
to it by tarring "established members" with a broad brush. Jumping
into a flamewar then claiming that you only counterattack is far from
convincing.
 
[email protected] wrote in message news: said:
So I'd
advise you to leave your abrasiveness at home where it belongs and
jump in when you have something to ask or contribute rather than
simply to bitch about the group. At the moment, nobody's really
interested in your opinion of the group because you have no track
record here to show that your opinion is valid.
Click to expand...

Oh come now, Therese. The alternative FAQ was quite well done. That
alone is a worthy -- and needed -- contribution.

You should also review his first few posts in this thread. They were
certainly not "abrasive" nor "bitch[ing] about the group" by any
stretch. He not only did not object to John C. relegating his
alternative FAQ to "entertainment" in the OP, but expressed
appreciation to John C. for including a reference. Was that abrasive?
Bitchy?

Anyone who reads this ng can see that civility is not highly valued by
some frequent posters and that some poserts have very definite views
that they attempt to impose on the group. You don't need to be a
regular contributor to see that. (My pets are raising civility --
however hopeless a quest -- and reducing restrictions on the topics to
be discussed.)

As for abrasiveness, you might review some of your recent posts versus
his when he is not being attacked. Perhaps you've been around some of
the abrasive personalities in this ng too long. If you know of a
better way to encourage civil discourse in an unmoderated ng, please
let us (especially me) know. Until then the alternative FAQ is the
best approach I've seen. As I stated previously, I would be quite
pleased were I able to claim the Anti-FAQ. Too bad you failed to
understand that it applied to you.

BillR
 
(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in
Anyone who reads this ng can see that civility is not highly
valued by some frequent posters and that some poserts have very
definite views that they attempt to impose on the group.
Click to expand...

You yourself have very definite views that you seek to impose upon the
group. People who disagree with you are branded by you as people who
"still don't get it."

You claim to be a champion of civility, yet you applaud referring to
some posters as "rude ****sticks."

<insert reply letting me know that I "still don't get it" here.>
 
Back
Top