I'm with arhuman; I would much rather see multiple postings confirming the same good advice than have "pseudo-duplicates" deleted out of hand.

Part of this stems from my distaste of direct editorial censorship. If someone has taken the time to compose a post attempting to help, even a short one with a link to further information, I believe that contribution should (generally) be given a chance to stand--even if there are more idiomatic, more well-written, or even more accurate responses in the thread. The writer tried to contribute and I like to see that encouraged. It even leads to interesting side discussions. (Unlike some, I do read all the replies in threads that interest me.)

However, the main reason why I don't mind seeing the same advice repeatedly posted in short order is because everyone has a unique set of experiences. Seeing different points of view over the same constructs can be just as educational (for me, at any rate) as the initial FAQ-answer. This assumes, of course, that the multiple posts include a little from the writer's direct point of view, experiences, and knowledge.

While I understand why some prefer brevity in their "standard" responses, I learn more from posts tailored to the thread in question. Sure, "Just the FAQ's" help, but the details can help fill gaps in the "Fine Manual" or uncover interesting corner cases.

--f