FAQ: Passing the torch?

[shplink]

Hi there...

I've been updating and posting the FAQ to this fine newsgroup for a
number of years now.

I enjoy browsing through the discussions, particularly the less
inflammatory ones, when I have the time. But I find myself monitoring
this group less and less. I wonder if the time has come to pass the
torch, so to speak:

Is an FAQ even necessary, any more? Would anyone be willing to take over?

I'd appreciate any feedback... Thanks!

~John K.

[siljaline]

shplink wrote:
> Hi there...
>
> I've been updating and posting the FAQ to this fine newsgroup for a
> number of years now.
>
> I enjoy browsing through the discussions, particularly the less
> inflammatory ones, when I have the time. But I find myself monitoring
> this group less and less. I wonder if the time has come to pass the
> torch, so to speak:
>
> Is an FAQ even necessary, any more? Would anyone be willing to take over?
>
> I'd appreciate any feedback... Thanks!
>
> ~John K.

John,

I am remiss at my promises to provide you feedback to overhaul the FAQ.

As far as someone else taking on what you have done very well for a good number
of years, I do not know what to tell you.

I would say this, based on the signal to noise ratio of this NG, I am not sure if it needs
an FAQ any longer.

At last revision it took longer in debate as to what should be in the FAQ than it did getting
a reasonably good FAQ put together - which begs the question.
If one was to do and FAQ from scratch, who, by definition would be able to sign off on it ?

I think those that have a legitimate interest in reading this group are sufficiently familiar with
whatever information required is out there on search engines.

If all else fails, ask.

Thanks for your efforts in maintaining the FAQ for as many years as it has been !!!
_My Hat off to you_


Silj


--
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_

[David H. Lipman]

From: "siljaline" <spam@uce.gov>

| shplink wrote:
>> Hi there...

>> I've been updating and posting the FAQ to this fine newsgroup for a
>> number of years now.

>> I enjoy browsing through the discussions, particularly the less
>> inflammatory ones, when I have the time. But I find myself monitoring
>> this group less and less. I wonder if the time has come to pass the
>> torch, so to speak:

>> Is an FAQ even necessary, any more? Would anyone be willing to take over?

>> I'd appreciate any feedback... Thanks!

>> ~John K.

| John,

| I am remiss at my promises to provide you feedback to overhaul the FAQ.

| As far as someone else taking on what you have done very well for a good number
| of years, I do not know what to tell you.

| I would say this, based on the signal to noise ratio of this NG, I am not sure if it
| needs
| an FAQ any longer.

| At last revision it took longer in debate as to what should be in the FAQ than it did
| getting
| a reasonably good FAQ put together - which begs the question.
| If one was to do and FAQ from scratch, who, by definition would be able to sign off on
| it ?

| I think those that have a legitimate interest in reading this group are sufficiently
| familiar with
| whatever information required is out there on search engines.

| If all else fails, ask.

| Thanks for your efforts in maintaining the FAQ for as many years as it has been !!!
| _My Hat off to you_


I disagree.
Because of the S/N ratio, I think a FAQ is more important than ever.

John:

You have done a great job. T H A N K Y O U !

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[siljaline]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> I disagree.
> Because of the S/N ratio, I think a FAQ is more important than ever.

I misspoke, who is going to relieve John of what he has done here ?

There are many considerations that have changed since the last FAQ
was assembled.

Now we would have issues to banter over such as what is the best tool
to run a HJT *type* log file, opinions vary, I would not be one to participate
in this type of discussion thread as, if memory serves, it went on for weeks.

I guess we'll see how this plays out.

Silj


--
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_

[David H. Lipman]

From: "siljaline" <spam@uce.gov>

| David H. Lipman wrote:
>> I disagree.
>> Because of the S/N ratio, I think a FAQ is more important than ever.

| I misspoke, who is going to relieve John of what he has done here ?

| There are many considerations that have changed since the last FAQ
| was assembled.

| Now we would have issues to banter over such as what is the best tool
| to run a HJT *type* log file, opinions vary, I would not be one to participate
| in this type of discussion thread as, if memory serves, it went on for weeks.

| I guess we'll see how this plays out.

| Silj


Through discussions it will be discerned... :-)

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "siljaline" <spam@uce.gov>
>
>> shplink wrote:
>>> Hi there...
>
>>> I've been updating and posting the FAQ to this fine newsgroup for a
>>> number of years now.
>
>>> I enjoy browsing through the discussions, particularly the less
>>> inflammatory ones, when I have the time. But I find myself
>>> monitoring this group less and less. I wonder if the time has come
>>> to pass the torch, so to speak:
>
>>> Is an FAQ even necessary, any more? Would anyone be willing to take
>>> over?
>
>>> I'd appreciate any feedback... Thanks!
>
>>> ~John K.
>
>> John,
>
>> I am remiss at my promises to provide you feedback to overhaul the
>> FAQ.
>
>> As far as someone else taking on what you have done very well for a
>> good number
>> of years, I do not know what to tell you.
>
>> I would say this, based on the signal to noise ratio of this NG, I
>> am not sure if it needs
>> an FAQ any longer.
>
>> At last revision it took longer in debate as to what should be in
>> the FAQ than it did getting
>> a reasonably good FAQ put together - which begs the question.
>> If one was to do and FAQ from scratch, who, by definition would be
>> able to sign off on it ?
>
>> I think those that have a legitimate interest in reading this group
>> are sufficiently familiar with
>> whatever information required is out there on search engines.
>
>> If all else fails, ask.
>
>> Thanks for your efforts in maintaining the FAQ for as many years as
>> it has been !!! _My Hat off to you_
>
>
> I disagree.
> Because of the S/N ratio, I think a FAQ is more important than ever.

+1

I'd like to add that using the FAQ is a whole lot more safe and efficient
than using a search engine. Moreover, "signing off on it" is a
non-issue--anyone can create a FAQ and post it. Many people have (in other
groups). It does not require the agreement of all members of a group to
create a FAQ that is useful to most members of the group.

> John:
>
> You have done a great job. T H A N K Y O U !

+100000000000000000000000000...on both counts.