On Wednesday 06 November 2002 5:46 pm, Simon Cozens wrote:
> "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair / soyabean.com.au> writes:
> > I had in this in mind.
> >
> >  - Can you please sum up the question and answer so we can preserve it?
> > Newcomer: OK, ...
>
> Nice idea, but I think you'll find 90% of the time the newcomer just wants
> their question answered, and may even unsubscribe when they've got the
> answer they want. The answerer is the one with the goodwill, utilize that.

Thanks, Simon.  I've noticed that threads like "Thoughts about Ruby" are 
typically answered by (at least) two kinds of replies:
1)  An attempt at a goodwill reply, but possibly incomplete or technically 
incorrect, and
2)  A reply that makes no attempt at answering the question, but rather 
expresses thinly veiled criticism of the newbie's last/favorite language and 
interprets the question as an attack on Ruby.

I submit that these "long" threads are due more to the gregarious and/or 
contentious nature of regulars rather than newbies.  

What if the person with the onus to summarize and post to the FAQ is whoever 
is most irritated with the thread and least wants to see it repeated?
Obligatory smiley :-)


-- 
"Every real thought on every real subject knocks the
wind out of somebody or other."
                                           -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.