Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!sahayman
From: sahayman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Frequently asked questions in these groups deserve a monthly posting
Message-ID: <21817@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 89 18:03:20 GMT
References: <21089@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <810064@hpsemc.HP.COM>
Reply-To: sahayman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steve Hayman)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Indiana University
Lines: 52

In article <810064@hpsemc.HP.COM> gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) writes:
>    Instead of getting a friendly reply to his question, some old expert says,
>"Hey!  I am really sick and tired of you young kids posting questions that have
>been asked before.   Read the summary and get a life."


I sure don't want that to happen, and I'll be very disappointed if
posting this article causes "experts" to start flaming back like that.
That isn't the intent at all.   If you read the entire article, you
will see that it says


                        What About Those People
       Who Continue to Ask Stupid or Frequently Asked Questions
                      In Spite of This Document?


 Just send them a polite mail message, possibly referring them to this document.
 There is no need to flame them on the net - it's busy enough as it is.


Maybe this is too far down.  I can change the second paragraph of the
posting from

    Later on in this article, you'll see the answers to some Frequently
    Asked Questions.  Please don't ask these questions again, they've
    been answered plenty of times already.  Thank you.  This article
    includes answers to:

to something like

    Later on in this article, you'll see the answers to some Frequently
    Asked Questions.  Please don't ask these questions again, they've
    been answered plenty of times already - and please don't flame someone
    just because they may not have read this particular posting. 



but I do not want to add something that says

>Say in the warning that it is NOT NECESSARY to read this
>list before posting, that it is only a CONVENIENCE.  Then say explicitly
>that anyone who flames a person for posting a FAQ is IN THE WRONG.

because (a) obviously it is not necessary to read this list before
posting, who ever said that it was? and (b) I don't care for the tone -
I'm not trying to write some Official Document Governing Usenet Rules of
Conduct.   I agree with what you're trying to point out and I think
it's covered adequately already.


Steve Hayman