Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!lll-winken!decwrl!adobe!heaven!glenn
From: glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Automatic posting v 2
Keywords: automatic posting
Message-ID: <152@heaven.woodside.ca.us>
Date: 7 Mar 90 01:55:48 GMT
References: <2879@ursa.UUCP> <18094@rpp386.cactus.org> <18096@rpp386.cactus.org> <30250@sparkyfs.istc.sri.com>
Reply-To: glenn@heaven.UUCP (Glenn Reid)
Organization: Skyline Press, Woodside CA
Lines: 25

In article <30250@sparkyfs.istc.sri.com> zwicky@stegosaur.itstd.sri.com.UUCP (Elizabeth Zwicky) writes:

>on the other hand, I'm a compulsive fixer of bad writing. If I rewrite
>this sucker from scratch, am I going to find myself in the middle of a
>flame war, or will it actually be useful?

I'll support you!  I'll even help a little bit, time permitting.

I have two suggestions, if we go with the routine posting:

	1.  It be posted no more often than once a month.
	2.  The answers to ALL questions be:
		a) one line long, or
		b) pointers to "real" information

The key to this is going to be to keep it short, concise, short, accurate,
short, helpful, non-partisan, and short.  If anything smells of controversy,
then the question/answer simply should not be included in the list.  For
example, having 60 lines about indentation style is a bad idea.  Nobody
has actually asked that question, anyway; it started when somebody flamed
somebody else's style, which there's no preventing.

Just my opinions, of course.

Glenn