Retired VIP wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:36:43 -0500, Mike Romain
wrote:


Mike Avery wrote:
snip good explanation

As we told the other Mike several times, the FAQ is not authoritative.
That doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Or that it's frequently posted
bullshit. It is a good resource as it stands.

Mike Avery


Good writeup Mike, it explains a lot.

The FAQ, when posted needs that 'not authoritative' caveat added to it
though, right at the start. That would explain the inconsistencies.


Sorry to disagree with you Mike A, but the FAQ doesn't really need to
be changed. Everyone should already regard it as a work-in-progress,
not the be-all, end-all to sourdough. You don't regard a recipe book
as the final word in cooking so why should you think of this FAQ as
the final word in sourdough?

Me thinks you just like to bitch!


Me thinks you need to learn to read attributions correctly and to be a
bit more careful in who you are replying to. I never said the FAQ
needed to be changed. I was the one who said the FAQ had value.

Mike

--
Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
part time baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM, yahoo and skype mavery81230
wordsmith

A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day:
All I want for Christmas is a box of Smurfs and a mallet!