many people have publicly complained that the FAQ is useless or worse.
you are certainly encouraged to mail them and ask them for their
insight, and stop reading the FAQ now.

aside from this, I will mostly stop responding to these or similar
non-points in the newsgroup or mail.

here are some quotes -- I hope you find them as humorous as I do -- the
last few are hilarious.

--> From: nick@secant.com (Nick Knight)

> It's a shame that the FAQ's available to the general public are effected so
> negatively by the whims of their author(s), and/or a small "circle" of
> off-center extremists.

> This FAQ contain WAY too much pointed personal opinion.  Can it be cleaned
> up and made more useful, or is it destined to simply express the outdated
> viewpoint of one or two hard.heads?

--> From: nick@secant.com

> This FAQ certainly takes the cake for being the most worthless one I've
> ever read.  I don't really care what the tone of the rest of the net is
> ... it doesn't disprove my point in the least.  Nice try, tho.

> There'd be hope, but Russell is in charge of this one.  The ultimate
> net.bitch.

--> From: nick@secant.com (Nick Knight)

> I'll take this oportunity to point out that some of these "answers"
> aren't as valuable as a new user might think.  That's a shame, but
> because these "answers" are maintained my one or two close-minded
> old-timers, some of the "answers" are nothing more than pointy opinions,
> and in fact, are fact-less.

--> From: nick@secant.com (Nick Knight)

> Good for you.  Your FAQ still is inaccurate and based on pointed
> opinion, nomatter *what* your follow up header "suggests".  It sucks,
> and if it's posted in all these newsgroups, I'll crosspost and say so in
> all of them.

--> From: nick@secant.com (Nick Knight)

> Now, quit trying to change the subject and answer the basic claim.  Your
> FAQ sucks and is made worthless by the interjection of massively
> inaccurate opinion.

--> From: jakovacs@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs)

> A constructive FAQ is badly needed.

--> From: systech@concentric.net (Martin Pollard)

> I'm more than willing to create, and post, an alternative FAQ, one which
> is long on actual facts and short on opinions (especially those of the
> closed- minded variety).  The current FAQ will be a good start, at least
> as far as raw information is concerned; the editorializing will, of
> course, be sent to /dev/null.

--> From: nick@secant.com (Nick Knight)

> Hmmm.  I've toyed with this idea myself ... at first I thought I'd
> create a "FAQ about the alt-usenet* FAQ ... the real story"-type thing.
> I think it might be more useful to actual create a real "alternate" FAQ
> with some real information.  It couldn't possibly be any worse than what
> already exists!

--> From: nick@secant.com (Nick Knight)

> As for "having to do with QWK" or not, who cares?  I mean, WHO CARES?
> You keep wanting to get so infinitely technical, and nobody needs to
> look that hard.  The files are created with a QWK extension.

--> From: nick@secant.com (Nick Knight)

> At this point, while I'd love to actually see the FAQ corrected, I'm more
> interested in unstubbornizing Russell.  We've had public and private
> exchanges, and my personal opinion is that Russell possesses less
> intelligence than a centepede.