wp2latex (1 of 4)

[Peter da Silva]

In article <19599 at well.sf.ca.us> Jef Poskanzer <jef at well.sf.ca.us> writes:
> You are not qualified to do this for at least two reasons.  One, you
> are not on the Internet, so as you said your ability to verify
> information in a timely fashion is crippled.

You have a point here.

> This is a minor point; if
> there was no one else willing to do it, and if there were no other
> reasons you shouldn't do it, then it would be fine.  But there are
> others willing,

So where the hell are they? Nobody else has offered.

> and there are other reasons.  Specifically, you are not
> impartial.

Do you mean that my views don't co-incide with yours. That's what this
particular buzz phrase usually means.

Nobody, including Mr. Jef "Automatic Alt.sources Email Flamer" is impartial.
The question is whether their private axes are going to get in the way. And
the only way to find that out in this case is to see what I come up with and
see if it's rational, impartial, and reliable.

If you're willing to do the job, do it.

If you're not, get out of the way.

> It's fine to have opinions, even wrong ones.  But a FAQ posting must
> represent either objective facts or general consensus. Your opinions
> on the Archive-Name header are neither, and codifying them into
> official rules, as you propose to do, would be an abuse of trust.

Well, they're already existing practice in (a) all moderated sources groups
(including alt.sources.amiga), (b) a reasonable percentage of actual
alt.sources postings, and (c) existing source-group archiving software.

For that matter, your own position that noting but sources should be posted
to alt.sources (which, by the way, I agree with) is not that much better
adhered to.

Besides, since when is anything in "alt" "official"? All I propose to do
is collect suggestions, combine them into a reasonably coherent document,
and post it periodically.

> A FAQ posting for alt.sources is a good idea, which I have supported
> for a long time.  But by your own words you are not the person to do
> it.

If not me, who? If not now, when?
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
<peter at sugar.hackercorp.com>.