Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs
[M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #289862] Do, 22 Juni 2006 18:22
Leo Breebaart  
>> [The welcomer message] pointed me at to many FAQs. However,
>> that's the problem with having so many FAQs, not a problem
>> with the Welcomer.)
>
> I agree, you've just posted your first post to AFP then your
> advised to subscribe to another newsgroup and read loads of
> FAQ's. I also agree that's it's more or a problem with having
> too many FAQ's than the welcome message.

I don't agree that the number of FAQs is that big a problem, but
it is clear to me that the opposite view is held by (too) many
people, and I am no longer willing to sit through another round
of trying to defend something that used to be such a self-evident
and welcomed part of afp.

In general, I no longer believe the FAQs I write or post reflect
the current afp culture and atmosphere very well (or even at all)
any more, and as I certainly have no motivation to rewrite them,
I am instead choosing to, effective immediately, discontinue the
posting of my own remaining afp FAQs (mini-FAQ and lspace-FAQ).
The lspace-FAQ will become web-only, the mini-FAQ I'm retiring
permanently.

In conversation with the afpmeet- and afp-faq maintainers it's
become clear that they also agree their FAQs no longer describe
the group or reflect its needs, so they have decided to withdraw
their FAQs from posting as well. The acronyms, daftpabank and
tagging FAQs had already been removed from the autoposter at the
request of their maintainer last week.

Note that this concerns only the FAQs posted by me through
lspace.org. The FAQs maintained and posted by ppint (_Terry
Pratchett Bibliography_, _Hello; welcome to afp_) are *not*
affected.

--
Leo Breebaart <leo [at] lspace.org>
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #289885 ] Do, 22 Juni 2006 21:03
Winterbay  
<snip>

> In general, I no longer believe the FAQs I write or post reflect
> the current afp culture and atmosphere very well (or even at all)
> any more, and as I certainly have no motivation to rewrite them,
> I am instead choosing to, effective immediately, discontinue the
> posting of my own remaining afp FAQs (mini-FAQ and lspace-FAQ).
> The lspace-FAQ will become web-only, the mini-FAQ I'm retiring
> permanently.
>
> In conversation with the afpmeet- and afp-faq maintainers it's
> become clear that they also agree their FAQs no longer describe
> the group or reflect its needs, so they have decided to withdraw
> their FAQs from posting as well. The acronyms, daftpabank and
> tagging FAQs had already been removed from the autoposter at the
> request of their maintainer last week.
>
> Note that this concerns only the FAQs posted by me through
> lspace.org. The FAQs maintained and posted by ppint (_Terry
> Pratchett Bibliography_, _Hello; welcome to afp_) are *not*
> affected.
>

I find this a bit sad since I really found the FAQs very useful when I
first started posting 3 years ago and when I now return 2 years after I
stopped fro reasons of ISP-idiocy and get a new welcomer mail I feel yet
again welcomed into afp.
The FAQs hold a lot of interesting information that it would be a shame
to loose.

But I guess that since they still reside on the Lspace website and you
can get to them from there that might work as well only not as good as
the posting of them.

/Winterbay
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #289928 ] Do, 22 Juni 2006 23:36
Flesh-eating Dragon  
Leo Breebaart wrote:

> I am instead choosing to, effective immediately, discontinue the
> posting of my own remaining afp FAQs (mini-FAQ and lspace-FAQ).
> The lspace-FAQ will become web-only, the mini-FAQ I'm retiring
> permanently.

I for one have just saved a copy of the mini-FAQ to local disk, so
that I know it's safe somewhere.

I also had a little idea yesterday, which may or may not be greeted
with approval (and, for that matter, may or may not work out). I would
like to spend a little time working on the prototype before I say what
it is, but it's faq-related.

Adrian.
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #289931 ] Do, 22 Juni 2006 23:56
sjouw_uitwijk  
oh dear.

welcome to irc.lspace.org #drum

:-)

Reinier
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #289980 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 08:35
Suzi  
In article <4g0i0bF1ku6d8U2 [at] individual.net>, Jennifer & Reinier Sjouw
sjouw_uitwijk [at] yahoo.co.uk wibbled...

> oh dear.
>
> welcome to irc.lspace.org #drum
>
> :-)

Quite.
And just because a few vocal people have said they don't like the FAQs
is no reason for their permanent withdrawal - if the current maintainers
don't wish to still post them then fair enough, but a chance should be
given for other potential maintainers to come forward :-(

Suzi
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #289984 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 09:24
Helen  
Suzi wrote:
> In article <4g0i0bF1ku6d8U2 [at] individual.net>, Jennifer & Reinier Sjouw
> sjouw_uitwijk [at] yahoo.co.uk wibbled...
>
>> oh dear.
>>
>> welcome to irc.lspace.org #drum
>>
>> :-)
>
> Quite.
> And just because a few vocal people have said they don't like the FAQs
> is no reason for their permanent withdrawal - if the current maintainers
> don't wish to still post them then fair enough, but a chance should be
> given for other potential maintainers to come forward :-(
>
I think an FAQ is a good idea, especially as we have tags and lots of
acronyms. The main FAQ I have a problem with will not be affected by
this decision. The tagging and acronym FAQ's are really good and can be
used as reference works. I feel a tiny bit guilty that they're going to
be stopped.

Helen
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #289993 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 11:02
esmi  
on 23/06/2006 07:35 Suzi said the following:
<snip>
> And just because a few vocal people have said they don't like the FAQs
> is no reason for their permanent withdrawal

As I understand it, *all* FAQS aren't being permanently withdrawn but
some FAQs are being retired by their maintainers as they are no longer
felt to be relevant to the group. Given that it does seem to have become
almost impossible to avoid continious complaints about either FAQ
content and/or posting coupled with the fact that some people seem to
feel that the FAQs should be completely ignored anyway, I can well
understand some maintainers feeling that the work involved really isn't
worth the effort any more.

Or to put it a little more strongly, being an unsung hero is one thing
but feeling like you're becoming a pilloried unsung hero is quite
another[1].

> if the current maintainers
> don't wish to still post them then fair enough, but a chance should be
> given for other potential maintainers to come forward :-(

What's stopping people? Anyone could have come forward at any time to
offer to take over a FAQ. Anyone still could. In fact, I did recently
flirt with the idea of taking over one of the FAQs but, after discussing
it with the current maintainer and 1 or 2 other people, also decided
that it probably wasn't worth the effort and that I'd be flogging a dead
horse.

To reiterate, nothing is stopping anyone from coming forward with an
offer to take over A.N. FAQ. Far from taking the ball home, it is now
firmly back in AFP's court.

esmi

[1] Purely *my* interpretation of the situation after watching a few
recent FAQ-related threads from the sidelines.
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #290004 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 12:56
Orjan Westin  
Leo Breebaart wrote:
>
> I don't agree that the number of FAQs is that big a problem, but
> it is clear to me that the opposite view is held by (too) many
> people,

Too many or too vocal?

> In conversation with the afpmeet- and afp-faq maintainers it's
> become clear that they also agree their FAQs no longer describe
> the group or reflect its needs, so they have decided to withdraw
> their FAQs from posting as well. The acronyms, daftpabank and
> tagging FAQs had already been removed from the autoposter at the
> request of their maintainer last week.

I have to say I felt very sad when reading this; it felt like the end of
an era. And I guess it is.

So... Will the tagging and acronym FAQs remain available on L-Space Web?

And will this change the direction of L-Space Web? It has been the
semi-official afp homepage for many years, but if the owners and
maintainers feel disenfranchised with afp - something I can understand,
as I do so myself to a certain extent - will the focus be more concerned
with Pratchett than afp?

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #290072 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 19:19
Louise Mac Mahon  
"Leo Breebaart" <leo [at] lspace.org> wrote in message
news:4fvudlF1kk8vsU1 [at] individual.net...
>>> [The welcomer message] pointed me at to many FAQs. However,
>>> that's the problem with having so many FAQs, not a problem
>>> with the Welcomer.)
>>
>
> I don't agree that the number of FAQs is that big a problem, but
> it is clear to me that the opposite view is held by (too) many
> people, and I am no longer willing to sit through another round
> of trying to defend something that used to be such a self-evident
> and welcomed part of afp.

please reconsider Leo. I really appreciate the faqs and believe that the
"opposite view" is held by fewer people than you might think.
The tagging in particular is central to afp
Louise
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #290073 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 19:28
Suzi  
In article <e7gbhr$19g$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>, esmi esmi [at] lspace.org wibbled...

[Snip]
> To reiterate, nothing is stopping anyone from coming forward with an
> offer to take over A.N. FAQ. Far from taking the ball home, it is now
> firmly back in AFP's court.

Which was sort of the point of the post I posted... newer people who may
not have felt "able" to volunteer while others were still doing it may
now feel that they could volunteer for what would be a "sits. vac."?

Suzi
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #290074 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 19:36
Gideon Hallett  
Louise Mac Mahon wrote:

>
> "Leo Breebaart" <leo [at] lspace.org> wrote in message
> news:4fvudlF1kk8vsU1 [at] individual.net...
>>>> [The welcomer message] pointed me at to many FAQs. However,
>>>> that's the problem with having so many FAQs, not a problem
>>>> with the Welcomer.)
>>>
>>
>> I don't agree that the number of FAQs is that big a problem, but
>> it is clear to me that the opposite view is held by (too) many
>> people, and I am no longer willing to sit through another round
>> of trying to defend something that used to be such a self-evident
>> and welcomed part of afp.
>
> please reconsider Leo. I really appreciate the faqs and believe
> that the "opposite view" is held by fewer people than you might
> think. The tagging in particular is central to afp

I agree 100% - I think the FAQs perform an essential function for
the group, and that their absence is our loss.

I would also say, though, that we can't expect the current
maintainers to be responsible for them if they no longer want to be
(and it *can* be an onerous task) - so, what we really /really/
need is people willing to help maintain them, even if it's just a
little bit and as time permits.

Stale FAQs are not much good to anyone, and they *should* represent
the overall consensus of the current group.

If we're going to revamp them, then I'm willing to help do my bit,
no matter how small, in revising and maintaining them.

Anyone else?

cheers,

Gideon.

--
(((( | ====diogenes [at] freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #290075 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 19:43
Orjan Westin  
Gideon Hallett wrote:
> Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
>
>>
>> "Leo Breebaart" <leo [at] lspace.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I don't agree that the number of FAQs is that big a problem, but
>>> it is clear to me that the opposite view is held by (too) many
>>> people
>>
>> please reconsider Leo. I really appreciate the faqs and believe
>> that the "opposite view" is held by fewer people than you might
>> think.
>
> I agree 100% - I think the FAQs perform an essential function for
> the group, and that their absence is our loss.

AOL!

> I would also say, though, that we can't expect the current
> maintainers to be responsible for them if they no longer want to be
> (and it *can* be an onerous task) - so, what we really /really/
> need is people willing to help maintain them, even if it's just a
> little bit and as time permits.
>
> Stale FAQs are not much good to anyone, and they *should* represent
> the overall consensus of the current group.

I wonder if I dare claim that a majority (of those who commented,
anyway) approved of my proposed change of the [C] tag..?

> If we're going to revamp them, then I'm willing to help do my bit,
> no matter how small, in revising and maintaining them.
>
> Anyone else?

Me too.

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290089 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 21:15
elfin  
On 23/06/2006 18:36, Gideon Hallett wrote:

> I agree 100% - I think the FAQs perform an essential function for
> the group, and that their absence is our loss.

The FAQs, or FAQs in general?

> I would also say, though, that we can't expect the current
> maintainers to be responsible for them if they no longer want to be
> (and it *can* be an onerous task) - so, what we really /really/
> need is people willing to help maintain them, even if it's just a
> little bit and as time permits.

So far as I am aware, and I may be mistaken, but the FAQs as were will
still be available via The L-Space Web. The relevant portion from
Leo's post reads thusly:
.... withdraw their FAQs from posting ...

This *does not* mean that they are actively withdrawing their roles as
maintainers of those FAQs, just that they will no longer be posted to
afp. (with apologies if I am reading what has been said incorrectly).

It may be they they disappear from The L-Space Web at some point in
the future as well, I have no idea if that is the intention or not.

> Stale FAQs are not much good to anyone, and they *should* represent
> the overall consensus of the current group.

You won't get any disagreement from this quarter.

> If we're going to revamp them, then I'm willing to help do my bit,
> no matter how small, in revising and maintaining them.

Does that include the mechanisms to auto post them as well?


What some have forgotten, and even more may not realise, is that
anyone can write, maintain and post an FAQ - along with all the flak
that invariably goes with it. Though how many people will take the
time to actually post an FAQ correctly is another matter entirely.

I have long said that afp has more than its fair number of FAQs.
However it could be argued that afp currently is in more need of them
now than it has for a while, though general Usenet etiquette FAQs
might not go amiss *sigh*.

elfin
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290096 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 21:30
elfin  
On 23/06/2006 20:15, elfin wrote:
> On 23/06/2006 18:36, Gideon Hallett wrote:
>
>> I agree 100% - I think the FAQs perform an essential function for
>> the group, and that their absence is our loss.
>
> The FAQs, or FAQs in general?

before someone picks me up on that line, it should have read:

The FAQs as posted to afp, or FAQs in general?

elfin
ok so I followed myself up :-P
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290114 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 22:43
Gideon Hallett  
elfin <elfin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:e7heoc$1sth$1 [at] mud.stack.nl:

> On 23/06/2006 18:36, Gideon Hallett wrote:
>
>> I agree 100% - I think the FAQs perform an essential function
>> for the group, and that their absence is our loss.
>
> The (lspace) FAQs, or FAQs in general?

Well, obviously, I like FAQs in general; they save a lot of
wasted effort and represent a pretty space-efficient way of
giving people a fair amount of useful information.

I also think that the AFP FAQs are desirable, as this newsgroup
does have a fair number of quirks and habits; and the FAQs are a
good way of educating people about those too.

(Things like the daftpabank; well, they might be more open to
argument; especially as some of the information pertains to
posters we haven't seen in years, like Remington Stone or
Elusis.)


> So far as I am aware, and I may be mistaken, but the FAQs as
> were will still be available via The L-Space Web. The relevant
> portion from Leo's post reads thusly:
> ... withdraw their FAQs from posting ...
>
> This *does not* mean that they are actively withdrawing their
> roles as maintainers of those FAQs, just that they will no
> longer be posted to afp. (with apologies if I am reading what
> has been said incorrectly).

My reading of it is rather more severe than that:

"I no longer believe the FAQs I write or post reflect
the current afp culture and atmosphere very well (or even at all)
any more, and as I certainly have no motivation to rewrite them,
I am instead choosing to, effective immediately, discontinue the
posting of my own remaining afp FAQs"

That to me sounds like an effective end to FAQ evolution; the
decision that the maintainers have no particular wish to keep
their existing FAQs current.

(Frankly, I can't blame them. It's a largely thankless job at the
best of times.)


> It may be they they disappear from The L-Space Web at some
> point in the future as well, I have no idea if that is the
> intention or not.

I read the announcement as saying that the maintainers do not
feel that the FAQs represent AFP any more; and that they do not
have the motivation or energy to give them the revision that
would appear to be necessary.

That spells the effective end of relevant FAQs as I see it; it's
not simply that they won't be posted to AFP any more.


<snip>
>> If we're going to revamp them, then I'm willing to help do my
>> bit, no matter how small, in revising and maintaining them.
>
> Does that include the mechanisms to auto post them as well?

Well, if it is felt necessary or desirable, yes.

I don't know how willing the lspace cabal are to maintain the
machinery any more; but heck, I'm a hostmaster at a hosting
company; I can probably rustle up some spare space and bandwidth
should it be required or useful.


> What some have forgotten, and even more may not realise, is
> that anyone can write, maintain and post an FAQ - along with
> all the flak that invariably goes with it.

A number of us have mentioned this a number of times!

Heck, this is the /vital/ thing in producing or maintaining a FAQ
- anyone can do it. That means you, that means me, that means
anyone prepared to put in the effort on behalf of the group.

(And yes, anyone prepared to take the stick if someone objects to
a bit of wording or a controversial clause.)

If you like the FAQs, and you think they add something to the
group, how about trying to give something back to keep them
going?

> Though how many
> people will take the time to actually post an FAQ correctly is
> another matter entirely.

I think that the days of one person running a FAQ are possibly
numbered - if FAQs are maintained by, say, a couple of people,
then you get more chance to sanity-check and proofread stuff and
can make allowances for personal-life trickinesses, but the
maintenance group is still small enough for changes not to get
lost in committee.

cheers,

Gideon.
[i] Self-Followup : (was: FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs') [message #290120 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 23:06
Hendrik Schober  
elfin <elfin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> ok so I followed myself up :-P

I just did that, too. (Following up myself, that is.)

Why is it that people feel like they need to aplogize
for it?

Schobi

--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290122 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 23:00
elfin  
snipping the majority, not much else needs saying. Though I do need to
pick up on point.

On 23/06/2006 21:43, Gideon wrote:
> elfin <elfin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> news:e7heoc$1sth$1 [at] mud.stack.nl:

> I don't know how willing the lspace cabal are to maintain the
> machinery any more; but heck, I'm a hostmaster at a hosting
> company; I can probably rustle up some spare space and bandwidth
> should it be required or useful.

I didn't know that was what you did, have I not been paying attention?

Anyway the main point about posting FAQs is that you do not need to be
in Gideon's position i.e. you don't need to be a 'hostmaster'. there
are many varied ways to post an FAQ, including but not limited to:

1. posting manually on whatever time scale you want, or whenever you
remember
2. downloading, and using, software that can handle it for you
3. asking someone else to post it for you

Posting FAQs *IS NOT* limited to technically minded people, but can be
achieved by anyone. Yes I maintain an FAQ, yes it is auto-posted
weekly (though perhaps not correctly but that is another matter for
another group) and yes it is posted via a Windows PC.

elfin
Re: [i] Self-Followup : (was: FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs') [message #290123 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 23:27
Brenda  
Hendrik Schober said:

> elfin <elfin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> [...]
>> ok so I followed myself up :-P
>
> I just did that, too. (Following up myself, that is.)
>
> Why is it that people feel like they need to aplogize
> for it?

I think it's because it demonstrates lack of
Re: [i] Self-Followup : (was: FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs') [message #290124 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 23:33
Brenda  
Richard Heathfield said:

> Hendrik Schober said:
>
>> elfin <elfin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> ok so I followed myself up :-P
>>
>> I just did that, too. (Following up myself, that is.)
>>
>> Why is it that people feel like they need to aplogize
>> for it?
>
> I think it's because it demonstrates lack of

care.

(Sorry.)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290126 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 23:41
esmi  
on 23/06/2006 21:43 Gideon said the following:
<snip>

> I think that the days of one person running a FAQ are possibly
> numbered - if FAQs are maintained by, say, a couple of people,
> then you get more chance to sanity-check and proofread stuff and
> can make allowances for personal-life trickinesses, but the
> maintenance group is still small enough for changes not to get
> lost in committee.

And, with the greatest of respect, I do think that this hypothetical
committee/small group runs a big risk of being labelled 'Cabal' at some
point in the future - with all of the negativity that this labelling can
bring with it. :-(

Sorry but someone had to say it...

esmi
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290138 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 00:46
Gideon Hallett  
esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote in news:e7hnpi$24ho$1 [at] mud.stack.nl:

> on 23/06/2006 21:43 Gideon said the following:
> <snip>
>
>> I think that the days of one person running a FAQ are
>> possibly numbered - if FAQs are maintained by, say, a couple
>> of people, then you get more chance to sanity-check and
>> proofread stuff and can make allowances for personal-life
>> trickinesses, but the maintenance group is still small enough
>> for changes not to get lost in committee.
>
> And, with the greatest of respect, I do think that this
> hypothetical committee/small group runs a big risk of being
> labelled 'Cabal' at some point in the future - with all of the
> negativity that this labelling can bring with it. :-(


Of course it does; however, as long as a consensual majority of
people do understand *why* the FAQs are there and how they benefit
the group, and are prepared to stand up for them, well ...

One of the things that has brought us to this crunch point is the
deafening silence of large numbers of posters either pro- or anti-
FAQ.


I count 13 people who've engaged in this thread so far, out of the
entire community. IIRC, 20something people posted to Lesley's poll.

Does this /really/ represent a majority of the people who post here
on a day-to-day basis?


No-one can make any reasonable judgement as to 'what the group
wants' with regard to such matters of FAQ in the face of such
indifference; and a dissenting opinion will always be able to claim
that *they* represent the real feelings of the group.

(...and that if the mind control rays got turned off, everyone
would suddenly come out and support them, etc, etc.)

If you like (or loathe) such facilities, then it is your duty to
make yourself known; and - nervous people and/or newbies - /if/
anyone bites your head off for expressing your opinion, then I
think we can say that, given the current climate, any number of
people *will* probably bite their head off in turn.

In other words, don't be afraid to speak up; it's your group too.

cheers,

Gideon.
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290157 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 01:40
Julia Jones  
In article <Xns97EBF184FADDCdiogenesfreeukcom [at] 131.155.141.97>, Gideon
<diogenes [at] freeuk.com> writes
>
>One of the things that has brought us to this crunch point is the
>deafening silence of large numbers of posters either pro- or anti-
>FAQ.
>
>I count 13 people who've engaged in this thread so far, out of the
>entire community. IIRC, 20something people posted to Lesley's poll.

Further data point follows:
I believe the FAQs to be a good thing, but am not willing to put in the
effort to be a FAQ maintainer myself (for a variety of reasons, one of
which is the likelihood that I will drop off afp at random intervals
owing to a bad attack of Real Life).
--
Julia Jones
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290165 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 01:56
Eric Jarvis  
Gideon diogenes [at] freeuk.com wrote in
<Xns97EBF184FADDCdiogenesfreeukcom [at] 131.155.141.97>:
>
> I count 13 people who've engaged in this thread so far, out of the
> entire community. IIRC, 20something people posted to Lesley's poll.
>
> Does this /really/ represent a majority of the people who post here
> on a day-to-day basis?
>
> No-one can make any reasonable judgement as to 'what the group
> wants' with regard to such matters of FAQ in the face of such
> indifference; and a dissenting opinion will always be able to claim
> that *they* represent the real feelings of the group.
>

The thing is I don't have all that much constructive to say. Where I have
I've done so. Otherwise other people have said everything I want said.

So. If we have to do this by all stating our positions.

I think the various volunteers that maintain FAQs, look after lspace, run
servers etc, do an absolutely superb job. Obviously nothing is ever
perfect and I can see that the welcome email and some of the FAQs could be
improved, it's just that I don't have any strong opinions about how that
should be done.

I'm used to doing this sort of thing the professional way, which isn't
appropriate in this context. Ideally we would need to survey a decent
sized sample of regular posters, new arrivals, lurkers and the general
public. Then we'd actually have a non-anecdotal basis on which to judge
what is working and what isn't. Without that I simply don't see that there
is any concrete evidence of success or failure in the welcome email and
FAQs other than the continuing popularity of the newsgroup. In short, we
know we are currently doing at least something right and not much that's
disastrously wrong. We know little else other than that a lot of people
have very strong opinions based almost entirely on their own personal
experiences.

I'm not prepared to spend the considerable amount of time and effort that
would be necessary to do a proper set of surveys of attitudes to the
welcome email and the FAQs. I suspect that anyone here who thinks they
would is either unaware of how much work it would entail or really
desperately needs to find some better ways to avoid boredom. It wouldn't
be worth doing badly, and to do it well would require weeks to devise the
questions and months to collate the results.

There is one constructive thing that might be worthwhile. That would be
for somebody (or a small group) of people to post a request for recent
arrivals to afp (both new posters and lurkers) to discuss off group what
information they found useful and what they found lacking. That might
conceivably turn up some interesting ideas. Otherwise my suspicion is that
anything we do is as likely to be obstructive as it is likely to be
constructive. Currently we only have a very biased sample of views.

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290195 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 08:18
Anke  
Gideon wrote:
>
> One of the things that has brought us to this crunch point is
> the deafening silence of large numbers of posters either pro-
> or anti- FAQ.
>
> I count 13 people who've engaged in this thread so far, out
> of the entire community.

OK, here goes:
Getting huge FAQ messages again and again and again in
my inbox was going on my nerves. I think sending the Tagging
and Welcome to afp stuff still worked, but the insanely big
messages like the Bibliography and Acronyms were a pain.

I'm in favour of *having* FAQs, but posted on l-space.
Sending a short message including a link or links periodically
on group as information for new members I'd consider a good
idea, but sending the entire Bibliography again and again,
not so much.

Anke
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290201 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 10:41
news0606  
Eric Jarvis wrote:
> The thing is I don't have all that much constructive to say. Where I have
> I've done so. Otherwise other people have said everything I want said.
>
> So. If we have to do this by all stating our positions.
>
> I think the various volunteers that maintain FAQs, look after lspace, run
> servers etc, do an absolutely superb job. Obviously nothing is ever
> perfect and I can see that the welcome email and some of the FAQs could be
> improved, it's just that I don't have any strong opinions about how that
> should be done.

AOL to all that.

Michael
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290211 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 11:43
Peter Ellis  
Anke wrote:
>
> OK, here goes:
> Getting huge FAQ messages again and again and again in
> my inbox was going on my nerves. I think sending the Tagging
> and Welcome to afp stuff still worked, but the insanely big
> messages like the Bibliography and Acronyms were a pain.

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with any of the lspace FAQs. However, the
monsters perpetrated by ppint. on a weekly or even semiweekly basis really
*really* do not need to be as large, or posted as regularly. As such, the
lspace people stopping posting FAQs is almost as precisely wrong as it's
possible to get.

Unfortunately, as already pointed out in this thread, anyone can create and
post a FAQ. And at the moment, anyone does - which means that the only way
to reduce the overall burden is for all the *reasonable* ones to go.
Madness.

Peter
Re: [M] FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290226 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 12:51
sphira9343  
Gideon wrote:

> One of the things that has brought us to this crunch point is the
> deafening silence of large numbers of posters either pro- or anti-
> FAQ.

The reason for this might be that we're so fed up with one Meta thread
after another that we've just decided to read another thread instead.
For my own opinion, the FAQs are fine as they are, they're useful, and
it's good to have them around for the purposes of pointing people
towards them when we need to do so. But I agree with Anke and others
that maybe they could be posted a bit less often. They are large,
after all, and a lot of people download stuff in order to work offline.

> If you like (or loathe) such facilities, then it is your duty to
> make yourself known; and - nervous people and/or newbies - /if/
> anyone bites your head off for expressing your opinion, then I
> think we can say that, given the current climate, any number of
> people *will* probably bite their head off in turn.

Not always though. A lot of us have expressed Meta-opinions in the
past, only to have our heads bitten off and then find a lot of people
agreeing with the biter. Or to find ourselves on the business end of
what I believe Lesley calls 'Let's Get $Afper'. Given that this whole
issue came up as part of a wider issue that has already proved very
contentious, it's no wonder people are either keeping their opinions to
themselves or even skipping the whole thing.

CCA
Re: [M] Meta threads; the care and feeding of. [message #290230 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 13:35
Gideon Hallett  
"CCA" <sphira9343 [at] aol.com> wrote in
news:1151146295.818090.233920 [at] r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Gideon wrote:
>
>> One of the things that has brought us to this crunch point is
>> the deafening silence of large numbers of posters either pro-
>> or anti- FAQ.
>
> The reason for this might be that we're so fed up with one
> Meta thread after another that we've just decided to read
> another thread instead.

As I said, though; meta threads don't come out of nowhere.

A meta thread generally arises in response to a tendency that has
been perceived as harmful to the group.

By (a not-very-good) analogy; courts are no-one's idea of fun,
but they exist as a response to crime, not as a cause of crime.

Meta threads do not have to be controversial or bitter (again,
see my '[M] tags' thread) - when they *are*, it is because people
already feel fairly strongly about such issues.

You're not going to get rid of those feelings, or find any form
of solution to a perceived problem, simply by not discussing such
things.

> But I agree with Anke and others that maybe they
> could be posted a bit less often. They are large, after all,
> and a lot of people download stuff in order to work offline.

That's fair enough. I do wonder myself if the Bibliography FAQ is
strictly necessary, given that much [R] stuff is now dealt with
far more by ABP.

>> If you like (or loathe) such facilities, then it is your duty
>> to make yourself known; and - nervous people and/or newbies -
>> /if/ anyone bites your head off for expressing your opinion,
>> then I think we can say that, given the current climate, any
>> number of people *will* probably bite their head off in turn.
>
> Not always though.

Alas, you're quite right.

> A lot of us have expressed Meta-opinions
> in the past, only to have our heads bitten off and then find a
> lot of people agreeing with the biter.

And it's up to all of us to try and stop this happening.

As I said elsewhere, meta threads are 'town hall' threads; they
usually have a specific purpose of discussion; and this purpose
is almost never served by getting into personal criticism.

I think that people *should* make an effort to keep criticism
impersonal in such matters; that they limit themselves to
criticism of the *position*, not the person.

Unfortunately, people do have different perceptions of what is
and isn't personal criticism, so meta threads *will* sometimes
get shouty, just as town council meetings will.

> Or to find ourselves
> on the business end of what I believe Lesley calls 'Let's Get
> $Afper'.

Again, I think this tendency is generally harmful to the group.

However, and I know this is to a certain extent controversial:
there is a big fat dividing line between *recognising* this
tendency and actually *trying to stop it*.

You can deplore group dogpiles to n'th degree - but unless you're
prepared to speak out against them when *your friends* do it,
then you're not doing anything to combat the tendency.

It takes a particular type of courage to stand up and say to your
friends "Look, I think you're victimising this person, and I
think it's harmful to the group as a whole".

I can think of just five people who do (or have done) this on AFP
on a regular basis: Leo, Karen, Orjan, Esmi and Elfin.

Leo is perhaps the person who does this more than anyone else;
and my participation in this set of meta-threads is directly due
to his response to Gid's "love us or fuck off" post - it pricked
my conscience to get involved.


Dogpiles are a pretty natural phenomenon among a social group;
but if they aren't held in some check, they have the power to do
tremendous damage and injustice.

If you think that dogpiles are harmful, then don't take part in
them, and don't let them to happen on your behalf.

> Given that this whole issue came up as part of a
> wider issue that has already proved very contentious, it's no
> wonder people are either keeping their opinions to themselves
> or even skipping the whole thing.

It is contentious; but the *point* of a meta thread is to try and
find a solution, not to continue the argument under another tag.

cheers,

Gideon.
Re: [i] Self-Followup : [message #290234 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 14:45
Pudde Fjord  
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Richard Heathfield said:
>
>> Hendrik Schober said:
>>
>>> elfin <elfin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> ok so I followed myself up :-P
>>> I just did that, too. (Following up myself, that is.)
>>>
>>> Why is it that people feel like they need to aplogize
>>> for it?
>> I think it's because it demonstrates lack of
>
> care.
>
> (Sorry.)
>
I liked the first response better.

Pudde.
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290236 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 14:55
Pudde Fjord  
Gideon wrote:

> I count 13 people who've engaged in this thread so far, out of the
> entire community. IIRC, 20something people posted to Lesley's poll.
>
There may be a lot of reasons for this:

1) That people filter the [M] tagged discussions (but not [I] for example)

2) The volume of traffic causes people to skip any threads they don't
consider very interesting, including these.

3) People have a backlog and have still not reached this thread.

4) They have no interest in these discussions at all.

5) They don't care either way.

6) They are away from the group for a while

7) They are new to the group and haven't formed any opinions about this yet.

and so on.

BTW: How many are *currently*[1] posting to other threads? I seem to
recall that even if some threads are getting very big, only a handful of
people *actually* posted there.

Pudde.

[1] In the same time frame.
Re: [M] Meta threads; the care and feeding of. [message #290241 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 15:14
Arthur Hagen  
Gideon <diogenes [at] freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> As I said elsewhere, meta threads are 'town hall' threads; they
> usually have a specific purpose of discussion; and this purpose
> is almost never served by getting into personal criticism.
>
> I think that people *should* make an effort to keep criticism
> impersonal in such matters; that they limit themselves to
> criticism of the *position*, not the person.

Hear, hear!

> You can deplore group dogpiles to n'th degree - but unless you're
> prepared to speak out against them when *your friends* do it,
> then you're not doing anything to combat the tendency.
>
> It takes a particular type of courage to stand up and say to your
> friends "Look, I think you're victimising this person, and I
> think it's harmful to the group as a whole".

I most definitely agree with that.

> I can think of just five people who do (or have done) this on AFP
> on a regular basis: Leo, Karen, Orjan, Esmi and Elfin.

And I most definitely /disagree/ with that, finding those named individuals,
except Orjan[1], some of the *worst* in ganging up on people. Not the same
people, but there's plenty of evidence for these named individuals going
after the man and not the ball, and jumping in with support for each other.

> Leo is perhaps the person who does this more than anyone else;

If you had meant joining the fray after it's singled out a person, I would
have agreed -- that's about the only times we see posts from Leo.

[1]: Orjan gangs up on people all on his own. I can respect that.

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290244 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 15:34
Tamara  
Anke wrote:
> Gideon wrote:
>> One of the things that has brought us to this crunch point is
>> the deafening silence of large numbers of posters either pro-
>> or anti- FAQ.
>>
>> I count 13 people who've engaged in this thread so far, out
>> of the entire community.
>
> OK, here goes:
> Getting huge FAQ messages again and again and again in
> my inbox was going on my nerves. I think sending the Tagging
> and Welcome to afp stuff still worked, but the insanely big
> messages like the Bibliography and Acronyms were a pain.
>
> I'm in favour of *having* FAQs, but posted on l-space.
> Sending a short message including a link or links periodically
> on group as information for new members I'd consider a good
> idea, but sending the entire Bibliography again and again,
> not so much.
>
> Anke
>

I agree that sometimes the flow of FAQs to a.f.p. is too much, and
ppint's posts (as much as I like reading them) are not necessarily FAQs
_about_ the newsgroup, and as such might need a different location
(a.b.p. or l-space), but I don't want to see them go altogether.

I suppose that a short weekly notice pointing at where _all_ the FAQs
are on l-space would be the way to go (a FAQs FAQ so to speak), useful
for newbies the meerkat missed as well as the regulars who have a sieve
for a memory as I do - I've always found the acronyms FAQ useful, as I
can never remember more than a handful of them.

I can set up an automated weekly message pointing at the FAQs [1], if
people agree that this is the way to go.


tamara,
adding her twopence' worth, so Gideon will be happy :)

[1] Not that I'm that technically minded, but I'll have help from a geek
friend or three...

--
tamara at blue-infinity dot net


"You could try refusing to lend out your books and comics unless the
person leaves you something equally valuable to them with you, as a
hostage. Of course, if that goes wrong, you could lose all your Sandmans
and books, and find yourself with several unwanted dogs, parrots and
children..."
Neil Gaiman's online journal
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290245 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 15:52
alec  
In article <449d3506$1 [at] news.broadpark.no>, puddespamfjord [at] netscape.net
says...
> Gideon wrote:
>
> > I count 13 people who've engaged in this thread so far, out of the
> > entire community. IIRC, 20something people posted to Lesley's poll.

> 1) That people filter the [M] tagged discussions (but not [I] for example)
>
> 2) The volume of traffic causes people to skip any threads they don't
> consider very interesting, including these.

Definitely true for me. Because I this download only fetched 12 posts I
am reading this, but normally I am simply markinging all [M] threads ar
read.

IMO, the [M] threads, like all monster threads, have reached the point
where all participants are simply restating their position in differrent
words. Much heat is being generated, and no light at all.

> 5) They don't care either way.

Also true. IMO, FAQs or no FAQs would be less harmful to the group than
the [M] threads.

Other than the [M] threads, the only other thread with any life in it
seems to be Dr Who, in which I am not interested becasue I don't watch
television. Afp is a pretty dull place these days.

Of course, I am contributing to that dullness by this dull post. But I
though I would mention it so that you dedicated arguers would know that
there is an awful lot of keeping-heads-down going on around here.
Re: [M] FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290254 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 16:53
sphira9343  
Pudde Fjord wrote:

> BTW: How many are *currently*[1] posting to other threads? I seem to
> recall that even if some threads are getting very big, only a handful of
> people *actually* posted there.

I am. In fact, I only looked at this one out of 'Well, I've read all
the others...'

CCA
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290262 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 19:55
April Goodwin-Smith  
"Anke" wrote ...
> Gideon wrote:
>> One of the things that has brought us to this crunch point is
>> the deafening silence of large numbers of posters either pro-
>> or anti- FAQ.
<snip>
> OK, here goes:
> Getting huge FAQ messages again and again and again in
> my inbox was going on my nerves. I think sending the Tagging
> and Welcome to afp stuff still worked, but the insanely big
> messages like the Bibliography and Acronyms were a pain.
>
> I'm in favour of *having* FAQs, but posted on l-space.
> Sending a short message including a link or links periodically
> on group as information for new members I'd consider a good
> idea, but sending the entire Bibliography again and again,
> not so much.
>

The problem with having a unified name [FAQ] for this variety
of informative but repetitive posts is that it gives the illusion of
all coming from a single authorative source. Most of the ones
you are not enjoying are posted by someone who has not
decided to stop.

I don't have a better suggestion, but the impression will remain,
especially if, when a discussion of FAQs occurs, only one or
two people from the posting side engage the discussion.

I don't have a solution - which is one of the reasons I haven't
said anything before: I don't think it is fair to comment about
something if I don't have a suggestion for how to fix what I am
commenting about.

I like the FAQs - even if I don't read them anymore. I think of
them as temporal punctuation, a kind of mental sign post of
where I am. However, I don't pay for my connection by the
time I use nor the amount I download, so I don't figure those
things into my cost/benefits analysis.

Whether the FAQs are posted or not is less important to me,
however, than the fact that some of the people maintaining
them and posting them have felt so unappreciated that they
have decided to stop cold with unhappy feelings. This is
not good. I don't have a solution for this, either, though.
I will say that I am sorry about this.

April.
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290267 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 20:40
Ailbhe  
Gideon <diogenes [at] freeuk.com> wrote
(on Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:46:25 +0000 (UTC)):

> Of course it does; however, as long as a consensual majority of
> people do understand *why* the FAQs are there and how they benefit
> the group, and are prepared to stand up for them, well ...
>
> One of the things that has brought us to this crunch point is the
> deafening silence of large numbers of posters either pro- or anti-
> FAQ.
>
> I count 13 people who've engaged in this thread so far, out of the
> entire community. IIRC, 20something people posted to Lesley's poll.

OK, I consider myself duly prodded.

Well, I think Leo's FAQs are great. I like him *far* too much to suggest
that he ought to continue to maintain and post them, and I can't think
of anyone else I dislike enough to place in such a nasty position. I'm
certainly not going to volunteer.

I don't know whether FAQs help newbies or not. I used 'em myself, some
seven years ago, once patient and kindly people had explained to me what
they were. Currently, afp is not the place I knew and loved, of course,
though I've recently realised that er, duh, that's my own fault and I
should do something about it - post more of what you'd like to see, and
all that.

If I wasn't 7 months into production of my second afp-induced baby, I might
well just give up altogether, particularly since I allowed myself, stupidly,
to get sucked into at least two group-eating threads recently. But I owe this
group a hell of a lot of my real actual life, so I stay subscribed.

Can't cope any more without a scorefile and a killfile though.

A.
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290279 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 22:06
Brenda  
April Goodwin-Smith said:

<snip>

> Whether the FAQs are posted or not is less important to me,
> however, than the fact that some of the people maintaining
> them and posting them have felt so unappreciated that they
> have decided to stop cold with unhappy feelings. This is
> not good. I don't have a solution for this, either, though.
> I will say that I am sorry about this.

<aol>
I was trying to find a way to say the same thing.
</aol>

FAQ maintenance is a somewhat dispiriting task anyway. It's a shame that it
should be thankless, too.

/me writes down a mental note[1] to post a "Thank You" to the FAQ maintainer
in his "home" group next time the FAQ appears.



[1] I have to do this with all my mental notes, or I forget...

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290293 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 23:30
Anke  
April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>
> The problem with having a unified name [FAQ] for this variety
> of informative but repetitive posts is that it gives the illusion of
> all coming from a single authorative source. Most of the ones
> you are not enjoying are posted by someone who has not
> decided to stop.

Yes, my apologies; I knew that when I started writing, but
somehow got confused.
The bibliography and the detailed "Welcome to afp"[1] and the
acronym FAQ are *great* resources, but, well, resources.
It's great to know they are there, and a regular reminder that
they are there would be fine, but getting "hit over the head" with
the whole things once a week?
I guess there's something behind this that has to do with
people reading newsgroups offline? I don't know, when I look
for information, I'd look on a website. *shrugs*

> Whether the FAQs are posted or not is less important to me,
> however, than the fact that some of the people maintaining
> them and posting them have felt so unappreciated that they
> have decided to stop cold with unhappy feelings. This is
> not good. I don't have a solution for this, either, though.
> I will say that I am sorry about this.

I appreciate the maintaining, the only problem I see is
frequent posting of the huge ones...

Anke

[1] I must have mixed that up with something else when I
wrote the first message; that's another huge FAQ...
Re: [M] Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs [message #290295 ] Sa, 24 Juni 2006 23:47
FiX01  
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:36:06 +0100, Gideon Hallett
<diogenes [at] freeuk.com> wrote:

[...]
>I agree 100% - I think the FAQs perform an essential function for
>the group, and that their absence is our loss.

>I would also say, though, that we can't expect the current
>maintainers to be responsible for them if they no longer want to be
>(and it *can* be an onerous task) - so, what we really /really/
>need is people willing to help maintain them, even if it's just a
>little bit and as time permits.

>Stale FAQs are not much good to anyone, and they *should* represent
>the overall consensus of the current group.

>If we're going to revamp them, then I'm willing to help do my bit,
>no matter how small, in revising and maintaining them.

>Anyone else?

I'd like to, but I _do_ have a job that steals most of my time so I
can't commit on making time for froup-related issues...

How about setting up a FAQ-specific mailing list? It would enable
people who can't contribute on a regular basis but ar einterested on
seeing the faqs maintained to participate according to their
capabilities...

FiX
Re: [M].FAQs for afp - was 'Stopping the lspace.org-posted FAQs' [message #290305 ] So, 25 Juni 2006 00:25
Diane L  
Gideon wrote:
<snip>
> One of the things that has brought us to this crunch point is the
> deafening silence of large numbers of posters either pro- or anti-
> FAQ.
>
>
> I count 13 people who've engaged in this thread so far, out of the
> entire community. IIRC, 20something people posted to Lesley's poll.

Hey, I've been away, I'm still catching up. If you're going to have
major constitutional crises while I'm on holiday, let me know in
advance, will you?

<snip again>

> If you like (or loathe) such facilities, then it is your duty to
> make yourself known

I like the fact that we have FAQs, I found them very useful when
I was a newbie but I rarely read them now. I think some of the
people who objected to the welcomer email either weren't here
for or don't remember when the questions *were* being frequently
asked and some of the responses were becoming less than polite.
Maybe they are posted too frequently (I guess that should be 'were',
now) and a weekly or biweekly message giving a web address
for where to find them would be less intrusive. I don'e see the
FAQs as rule that must be obeyed or else (there isn't an 'or else'
for a start), but as helpful hints for fitting in as quickly and easily
as possible.

Diane L.
Vorheriges Thema:[F] -F- Vancouver BC 2nd July meet report
Nächstes Thema:-F- Vancouver BC Report for Meet 1 & Reminder for Meet 2
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 08:45:30 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07293 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered