I think this would be fairly easily documented. The FAQs are
something of a mixed bag. There are some converted USEnet postings
that were not written with the intent of long-term archiving. There
are some FAQs which need to be rewritten (for example, the "Responses
to Young-Earth arguments FAQ" is a conglomeration of a USEnet posting
of mine and one by someone else; I do not agree with some of the
other guy's arguments and have asked that the file be split).
However, I believe that there are *many* files in the t.o archive
which (1) have a reasonable tone, (2) are factually accurate,
and (3) present plenty of references for further investigation. It
would probably be better to recommend individual files rather than
the archive as a whole.
Art Chadwick responded:
> Obviously all articles posted there are biased (if not they would not
> be posted there). As to fairness, it is fair to its reason for
> existing, but it is by no stretch an effort by fair minded individuals
> to arrive at truth, as you well know, and have attested yourself.
Out of curiosity, Art, what *online* materials would you identify
as qualifying for that designation? ("www.icr.org"? :-) )
-- Chris (chris@stassen.com)