Re: FAQ's versus "Questions Newbies SHOULD Ask"?

[Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com>]

On 04/17/2015 04:15 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 08:52:16PM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > * On 2015 14 Apr 13:57 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 14 April 2015 12:08:09 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 14 April 2015 17:03:48 Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > > > FAQ's may indicate questions others have asked.
> > > >
> > > > In my experience they frequently indicate questions the writer is
> > > > hoping/expecting you to ask, that noone has ever asked and that I have
> > > > never thought of asking.
>
> I find it annoying that questions that really should be in there,
> aren't. I once had a program which I couldn't quit from, (weird, but
> true) and it wasn't even mentioned in the FAQ, all that was in there was
> weird stuff that no one would even think of.
>
> > > > Lisi
> > >
> > > Good for a grin, Lisi, thanks.  And here I thought I was alone in
> > > thinking that.
> >
> > We're all cynics!
>
> Just as well, too eh?
>
> Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are not
> as they ought to be.

Search results which deliver an FAQ more than several years old need to 
automagically be sent by the way-back machine to some place noted as 
"probably-old-and-crufty" in the search header. Then the author could 
pull it or update it. I learned the hard way to check the date before 
applying myself as root to make changes via keyboard. Ric


--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html