Formhandle
fastseduction.com> wrote in
news:ErKdncuIp6o1GTvYnZ2dnUVZ_s2vnZ2d@giganews.com:
> speeding wrote:
>
>> Formhandle
fastseduction.com> wrote in
>> news:c7qdnYYRaKuZ5zjYnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@giganews.com:
>> >>> The most common aspect of a FAQ is "Frequently". How is this a FAQ
>>> if none of the questions you list come up frequently? Some of them
>>> have barely, if ever, come up at all except from you.
>>
>> The first seven questions are all from the original FAQ.
>
> Which was in sore need of updating. Which is what happened.
Yeah. But, I didn't change them all that much. You're not complaining about
them, are you? If so, what do you believe could be given as an answer?
> There's also no "official" here. With the help of a few others, I put
> together a more constructive FAQ. You're just re-posting what became
> out-dated and added a couple crap questions.
But, it's the only one actually being posted here. It's hard to say that
the FAQ I'm saying is outdated and has crap questions if it's the only FAQ
being put *ON* ASF and when you've offered nothing constructive towards it.
>> Not quite, but
>> almost word for word. So yeah, they aren't asked that often any more.
>> But since they were in the original, I put them in the update of the
>> original. The last three questions are easily the most commonly asked
>> questions on ASF. The question about Ray is still an ongoing subject
>> in several threads.
>
> Because people get drawn into that crap. Dredging up crap only causes
> the crap to continue.
Is it your claim that "the crap" was not as prevelent a month ago, before
there was an FAQ being posted on ASF? I would have to disagree. I'd say
that people have been drawn into the Flame War long before I started asking
about posting an FAQ on ASF.
> Most people can figure out things pretty quick on their own,
> especially in regards to that topic. A FAQ is meant to save newbies
> some time with the most frequently asked questions. A FAQ is not
> meant to be a political mouthpiece.
Agreed. What part of the FAQ do you believe is a political mouthpiece? An
Inconvenient Truth is a "political mouthpiece". Yet it's also
scientifically accurate and honest. Sure, some people don't wish for the
message to get out. It hurts their interests. But it's not a pack of
lies... it's just... an inconvenient truth.
I'd hope you'd welcome accurate and honest information. Surely you aren't
claiming mASF is a Usenet group? Are you? Is your objection the last
question, that points out the differences between a forum and a Usenet
group? Are you saying the answers are not accurate and correct? Or just
saying that you just don't like to see them answered?
Actually, though, I do agree there is a problem with the answer. There is
not JUST one site that calls itself ASF. There are *TWO* sites that call
themselves ASF. One is a commerical web portal and the other is strictly a
web forum with no portal and only ads from the hosting site. It's not right
for me to mention one site and not the other... not when both are using the
name ASF...
Tell me... how's this sound???
==================
#9: What is the moderated version of ASF?
There is no moderated version of ASF. There are two web forums that are
using the name ASF in their title. Neither site was created to be a
moderated version of ASF. However, both sites contain archived postings of
the Usenet ASF. There is no record in the ASF archives of any serious
attempt to create a moderated ASF on Usenet.
http://www.altseductionfast.com/forum/ ==> A web forum that, aside from
ads from the hosting service, is otherwise commerical free.
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/ ==> Also refered to as mASF. A
commerical web portal with various ads that are discretely placed on the
top and sides.
==================
Of course, I might be pushing to say that
altseductionfast.com was not
created to be a moderated version of ASF... but I don't recall having seen
anyone discuss it on ASF before.
>>> Also, by repeating a FAQ instead of a pointer to one, you're just
>>> flooding the group with copies of something that you're going to
>>> change constantly. Some up with something solid or wait until you
>>> do before sharing. I mean, it can't be that hard, it's just a
>>> single document.
>>
>> How does someone post a pointer to a Usenet post? You are talking
>> about a pointer to a commerical web portal. IE: Spam.
>
> So post it somewhere else. You can create a blog for free. As can be
> witnessed by recent events, even an idiot can do it.
How do I post a blog on ASF? The whole point of posting an FAQ on ASF is to
post an FAQ **ON** ASF. There's was no FAQ being posted on ASF. That's
why I started asking about it. Now there is. What's your beef with seeing
an FAQ posted on ASF?
>> It's not possible to "point"
>> to a Usenet post because Usenet posts do not HAVE pointers. They have
>> headers. And I've never heard of a news reader yet that can pull a
>> header in a manner like a URL does for a website. At best, you could
>> point to a Google archive or some other... WEBSITE. But if you can
>> explain to me how I can search a news group directly... please let me
>> know. Grepping on a server is about all I can imagine for trying
>> that.
>
> You know, your argument may have been plausible prior to 1993. But
> you are basically saying you are refusing to use a certain technology
> (the web) which supports access consistency just so you can continue
> to be limited by USENEt protocol for the purpose of purity.
The "web" is not Usenet. Posting to the web is not the same as posting
someont **ON** Usenet. Something posted on the web can be changed at will
easily. Something hosted on a web server could be shut down by someone
tomorrow. But something posted on Usenet is eternal. (relatively, of
course)
Someday Usenet might cease to exist. But it hasn't yet. Let's look at your
argument though, from a different persepctive. Yes, the web has access
consistancy (so long as the website remains up) is can be made searchable
and an FAQ posted on a website can even use links to skip to individual
questions. Yery handy and nice. Not ancient like Usenet. I agree 100%% with
you on this.
So, by this logic of yours... why are you posting on Usenet instead of on
your web? Shouldn't you be completely eschewing use of Usenet... after all,
it's outdated and so limited. Yes, I understand that many want to get
OTHERS to shun Usenet and move to a web portal or forum. But, your argument
is that YOU want to use that technology. So, why aren't you there instead
of here?
Put it yet another way... You come to Usenet... so why do you preach
about how outdated you consider it to be? Isn't that like a preacher going
into a bar to complain about the evils of alcohol comsumption while
partaking of the wine... in the bar. Or like Ken Lay trying to give a
speech about his high moral ethics.
> If I thought the way you did, FS& mASF would not exist and the same
> 200-300 vocal people would be arguing on ASF (sprinkled with a few
> actual PUAs), there would be Ross & a few other pickup/seduction
> resources out there, Neil's book would have never been written,
> Mystery's idea for a infield workshop biz would have taken forever to
> launch, DYD would have not had an initial burst of market penetration,
> and basically the entire landscape of pickup resources and options and
> businesses out there would be 10%% of what they are now.
Of course they would exist. It's not as if you created these entities as
some alturistic endeavor to create a moderated Usenet version of ASF. If
you didn't create a wonderful business enterprise... someone else would
have.
That would be like saying that if Bill Gates hadn't started DOS then
Microsoft wouldn't exist. Sure, technically it wouldn't be a company called
MS... but there'd be something pretty much like it. Granted, the company
that would have formed might not be as good or as giving or as customer
focused... but someone would have created it or something akin to it. (My
psychic intuition says it would have called MacOS...)
You're basically claiming that if you hadn't created the wheel, we'd all be
riding on horseback and living in teepees. Somehow, I doubt that your
competitors/rivals/partners really consider you as the inspiration for
their creative muse. They might be glad (or not) that you came along. But
I'm sure they all figure they'd be just fine anyways. (for a perspective on
this, ask how Gates, Jobs, McNealy, and Bosack/Lerner all think they'd be
doing if one of them hadn't started up along with the others.)
> This whole niche would have floundered and disappeared almost into
> oblivion. It was great way back, of course even a little is very
> useful, but that's where it was heading. Obscurity and eventually
> oblivion.
Sure, sure. We'd all be using accoustic couplers and teletypes. No one
would have envisioned the Internet. Computers would be huge water cooled 5
tons machines that use punch cards for data entry and storage. You aren't
serious, are you? Do you REALLY consider yourself the Godfather of
Seduction? Now *YOU* are starting to sound like you believe in the tales of
a "seduction mafia".
>> As for changing the FAQ, I doubt it'll change much more.
>
> Then what's the point? This was already done. You're not even
> re-inventing the wheel. Your rolling out a rough chiseled round stone
> for all of us to look.
So, what's your beef? If it was done, then what's the problem with seeing
something that is missing brought back? It's not as if you're saying
there's something better. There's not. There's no other FAQ being posted to
ASF. So what's your beef?
>> This is only the
>> third week it's been posted. Give other ASF readers a chance to read
>> the thing. I understand you'd much rather direct them to a commerical
>> web portal. I'd rather they stay on Usenet.
>
> I don't care where people go. I'm just providing an option for them
> if they don't want to be here. As far as the FAQ on my site, I don't
> think anyone gives a fuck except you or the dude who's the basis of
> one of your FAQ questions. It's not like I'm pitching a product when
> sharing the link or charging access or doing anything other than
> pointing it to somewhere that has a consistency of availability for
> the long term.
Sure. Sure. You don't care where they go.. but if they do go.. you want to
tell them where to go. There's an abundance of people on ASF that seem to
want to tell others where to go.
And yes, you are pitching a product. Actually, several. I haven't bothered
to try to count the ads... but I'd venture to say I'd need more than one
hand to count them up. that's the point of a web portal, isn't it. Mass
adverising.
Here's a question for you... why doesn't the FAQ on your site provide links
to other web forums? Why are the only things referenced in the FAQ on your
site pointers to your site?
> There's even a PLAIN TEXT version of the same exact same FAQ. If you
> have no problems with the FAQ, and only that it's visible on a web
> page that generates revenue indirectly, then point to the plain text
> version.
That sound's like a WONDERFUL idea. Except, of course, it is the SAME FAQ
for your site... not for ASF. But otherwise, yes... it might be a wonderful
idea if there was an FAQ on ASF that pointed to an FAQ *for* ASF. Silly
me... I'm just posting an FAQ for ASF directly on ASF. Rather than posting
a pointer to it.
> It's not as nicely formatted, but I went out of my way to make it
> dynamic so that when the HTML version is updated, the plain text
> version automatically updates itself. I did this because I could
> predict you 6 years ago LOL.
That's all nice and wonderful that you have an FAQ for your site in plain
text that is updated when you update the FAQ for your site in HTML. Too bad
there's not an FAQ for ASF that is updated on ASF when an HTML version is
updated on... um... ASF. Okay... next question... how do I post HTML format
on Usenet. If I wanted to try to make someting bold or maybe
underlined... would putting the html tags on it do that? I didn't think
it would. But wow. If it did.. then Usenet could be just like a web forum.
Maybe someone should try to upgrade Usenet. It's so old. LOL.
>> Or did you forget one of the concerns raised about creating the web
>> forum in the first place... the concern about people not finding out
>> about the web forum... Gee... daily advertising?
>
> There's a separate weekly post for that. One post is for the FAQ,
> another is for mASF. Daily? Since when do the automated posts show
> up here daily? They're once per week. They also make use of
> consistent formatting so if anyone wants to filter them out, they can
> easily.
Not the autmoated posts. At least I don't think the poster said anythign
about automated posts. Just talking about the forum daily. Gee. That
doesn't happen. Besides, that was one posters concerns. What did the
Committee to Form a Moderated Usenet Group decide on?
Oh yes... the same thing that any group can decide on in ASF. Nothing.
> I'm still wondering about you're rolling out the chiseled wheel.
> What's the point? You really still didn't answer that. At least make
> it constructive and useful. Or are you just doing it for political
> agenda?
I'm rolling out the chiseled wheel because there's nothing else rolling
around. Why didn't you speak up when I was asking about it? When I was
asking for input... where was your voice?
But now you're complaining about "political mouthpieces". I still don't see
you offering up ideas for what an FAQ on ASF should look like. Since there
wasn't an FAQ on ASF until I brought it back... what is your complaint
about the old one being updated and reposted?
You certainly seem to have something to say about politics and interests.
But not much to say about what an FAQ on ASF should look like. So, care to
help with developing/improving the posting of an FAQ on ASF? Or are you ust
upset that there is someone posting an FAQ on ASF?
>> ====
>> Thurs, Aug 9 2001 6:38 am
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. We'll probably have a lot less newbies who find out about it. I
>> would consider this to be a loss. (I stumbled across this NG purely
>> by accident as I'm sure many other now-regulars have). I'd hope we
>> could actively promote the new location maybe with a daily post back
>> here in the original usenet group. (it could be scattered in amongst
>> all the Ray posts).
>>
>> regards,
>> Scorpo rAFC
>> ====
>>
>>> Another thing is, how many people are contributing to your version
>>> of the FAQ? If it's just you, it's not representative of the group,
>>> it's just your opinions.
>>
>> Well, since it's about a fourth from the original FAQ... that's not
>> my opinion. It might be someone else's. Another fourth comes from
>> commonly defined terms. I found them defined on a web site portal,
>> among other places I frequent. The majority, though, was a
>> contribution from Now Im Confused. The only part that is from me is
>> the part about a web portal that is calling itself the alternative to
>> ASF. Even though there's another website that's also called
>>
www.altseductionfast.com.
>>
>>> You may want to rant about my using FS to share a FAQ but the fact
>>> remains that I and others took the time to ensure it covered many
>>> actual often-asked beginner questions, and answered them thoroughly.
>>> Many contributors are also cited and I don't flood the place with
>>> duplicate copies, I only automate the publishing of a pointer to it
>>> so if it changes nobody will get confused between multiple varying
>>> copies on USENet.
>>
>> You aren't "sharing" it. You aren't posting an FAQ about ASF. You're
>> posting spam about a web portal. It directs traffic to a web portal.
>> Call it what it is. If it was an ASF FAQ then it would contain
>> questions and answers. But it doesn't. It contains a link.
>>
>> And yes, you and a few others whined and bitched and yes... did a
>> great deal to help, way back in 2001, about how to answer and avoid
>> having to repeat answering newbie questions. Did you forget that was
>> the reason for wanting to create mASF in the first place? Let me
>> remind you what one person said...
>>
>>
>> ========
>> Fri, Aug 10 2001 12:40 am
>>
>> To chime in as the devil's advocate....creating a moderated
>> newsgroup, while not a bad idea...has inherent problems associated
>> with it. I believe I was one of the first posters to bitch someone
>> out and tell them to start a fuckin moderated newsgroup and stop the
>> fucking whining about newbie posts. A few downsides, some already
>> pointed out are 1. moderator persoality/personal bias 2. time
>> consuming 3. I read over and over there is a huge archive of info.
>> available...if all the answers are already there....why is there a
>> need for a new group, let alone a moderated one? 4. missed
>> opportunities to further develop tolerance, patience, etc. with
>> dealing with AFC's and 'cockblocks' (i.e. group efficiency
>> blocks/info. blocks) 5. missed opportunites for RAFC's to CHALLENGE
>> THEMSELVES to take LEADERSHIP and develop those skills 6. hiding from
>> reality/dealing with change and adapting and overcoming
>> obsticales....
>>
>> just food for thought.
>> psychobabble
>> ========
>>
>>
>> As for the bullshit about flooding multiple copies... are you
>> forgetting that you have not one, but TWO automatically posted floods
>> that point to the exact same resource?
>>
>>> You bugged the hell out of all of us with your probes recently, so
>>> now I ask you basically the same thing. What's your point?
>>
>> The point is that until I took the initiative a few weeks ago, ASF
>> hasn't had an FAQ that is *FOR* ASF. It's got two spam broadcasts
>> that point to a web portal where someone can go off Usenet to read a
>> forum's FAQ. But it doesn't have an FAQ that is ON ASF itself. So, I
>> took Psychobabble's advice and I found the original FAQ that was
>> posted to ASF when it first started. And I updated it a bit, with a
>> lot of input from Now Im Confused. But, it's still an FAQ that is ON
>> ASF and about ASF... not a spam link to a web portal that's not on
>> Usenet and lest you forget... basically states...
>>
>>
>> My FAQ is not an official FAQ for ASF any more than any other FAQ
>> someone might compile. It's merely a collection of opinions.
>> Suggestions and contributions are welcome, although the authors
>> reserve the right of final decision as to what ends up in it. This
>> FAQ is, however, official for the forums available through Fast
>> Seduction. The policies laid out in this document are expected to be
>> followed strictly when posting to the moderated ASF forums.
>>
>>
>> Gee... that might look vaguely familiar to you....
>>
>> So, what's YOUR beef? After all... you aren't claiming to have an
>> offical FAQ either. At least the FAQ I'm posting was the original FAQ
>> from way back when. Your is not much more than a pointer to a web
>> forum FAQ. If you got a beef with an actual ASF FAQ, bring it. What
>> would you like to see in it? What would you like to see different?
>> What questions do you think should be there?
>>
>> Or is your objection merely that it isn't directing traffic strongly
>> enough, as was feared by another poster back in 2001?
>>
>>
>
>
