Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
=- John Niendorf wrote on Wed 26.Jun'13 at 12:47:03 +0900 -= This is only my point of view. To everyone his own. ;) 1. RTFM is rude. It is usually written by people who seem to feel the need to show that they know more than someone else. Somebody hasn't done his homework and wants somebody else to do it, it's just a short for: do your part. Especially when all I could do was copypaste, ... why should I? If people just don't know where, give them pointers. 2. News: It isn't a burden to hit the delete or simply ignore a post. One single case is not the problem, but what it turns into. The burden comes from excess as described in previous eMail from me. A good teacher never says Read the Fing book, kid. Hmm, a) sometimes it helps to read, or can we save us the time of providing docs? If they are not made for the users, for who else? b) I didn't know I was dealing with kids. ;) 3. The idea of having a seperate moderated list for basic questions vesus advanced questions strikes me as a huge confusing waste of time. The same people who get so upset that they have to reply RTFM will get upset and whine about questions being posted to the wrong list. That's what the moderators are for: filter better than the OP, i.e. it's not free-for-all. One-shot OPs wouldn't learn from mistakes, moderators should. Actually they probably wouldn't do mistakes because they forward only what they couldn't answer directly from docs-look-up, i.e. what the OP could have done. If you don't want to answer something, don't answer it. Replying RTFM does nothing except make you look like a jerk. Some requests likewise. I don't say all, so I don't have an rtfm-auto-responder. ;) These days I'm late on replying, so if somebody provides the asked for service, then I save my rtfm or even save it altogether because it's too late to connect. ;) -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:03:32PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: On 21.06.13 10:13, Rado Q wrote: But not to make one side happy and reject the other, how about this: we get 2 lists, one for the basicsimple stuff (mutt-users), the other for advanced (mutt-adventures). Have some moderators sitting on the basic- line forwarding the advanced stuff (users) to the other list. Would you volunteer? It isn't always necessary to make a simple matter complicated. Most humans learn after a while how to identify a KLB, and anyway, netiquette KLB ? -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
I've been watching this thread for a while and thinking Good grief, give me a break. This is only my point of view. 1. RTFM is rude. It is usually written by people who seem to feel the need to show that they know more than someone else. 2. Having to put up with people who ask basic questions is a lame complaint. News: It isn't a burden to hit the delete or simply ignore a post. Self-righteous claims of pedagogical concern that the person asking the question will not really learn anything if you simply give them the answer ring hollow to me. A good teacher never says Read the Fing book, kid. 3. The idea of having a seperate moderated list for basic questions vesus advanced questions strikes me as a huge confusing waste of time. The same people who get so upset that they have to reply RTFM will get upset and whine about questions being posted to the wrong list. If you don't want to answer something, don't answer it. Replying RTFM does nothing except make you look like a jerk. -- John
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
On 2013/6/25 11:47 PM, John Niendorf wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and thinking Good grief, give me a break. This is only my point of view. 1. RTFM is rude. It is usually written by people who seem to feel the need to show that they know more than someone else. 2. Having to put up with people who ask basic questions is a lame complaint. News: It isn't a burden to hit the delete or simply ignore a post. Self-righteous claims of pedagogical concern that the person asking the question will not really learn anything if you simply give them the answer ring hollow to me. A good teacher never says Read the Fing book, kid. 3. The idea of having a seperate moderated list for basic questions vesus advanced questions strikes me as a huge confusing waste of time. The same people who get so upset that they have to reply RTFM will get upset and whine about questions being posted to the wrong list. If you don't want to answer something, don't answer it. Replying RTFM does nothing except make you look like a jerk. Thank you, John. Well put, and correct in every point. -- I tried godaddy.com domainsbyproxy.com ...and I'm sorry I did!
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 07:30:46AM +, John Long wrote: Asking on a mailing list, where someone (or many someones) almost certainly knows the answer without looking it up, AND will reply to you usually in less than 5 minutes, while you go make yourself a nice cup of tea, is a much more productive and less frustrating way to solve the problem, and should be encouraged, not discouraged. Otherwise why are we here? But it's a two way street at least it should be. I gave the best answer I had since I also use Emacs with Mutt. But my answer wasn't acknowledged. I took the time to respond and I see my time wasn't appreciated. So now I'm very less likely to answer anything from this person in the future. I understand what you're saying, but I think that's a pretty unrealistic attitude to take to not receiving acknowledgement to a mailing list post. Many threads generate a lot of responses (though this one did generate only a few responses which weren't part of my netiquette rant)... It's not reasonable to expect a question poster to acknowledge every response; nor is it desirable. You would just end up with a massive thank-you-fest. Another answer was acknowledged; that answer was the one that Paul was specifically looking for. While I appreciate knowing my answers were helpful, I really don't want people posting thank-you messages to every post unless they contribute something beyond an expression of gratitude. That also is just noise. Back to your subject, agreed RTFM posts aren't helpful. They only demonstrate the person posting the RTFM has more time than manners. In 95% of RTFM cases a helpful answer would take less effort and bandwidth than the rant that inevitably comes with their RTFM post! I agree completely. Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 I'll have a large pepperoni to go! =8^) --Captain Pizza -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpzd2GFFo_3v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: Request for old cruft. [Was: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)]
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 09:47:23PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: On 21.06.13 10:52, Eduardo Alvarez wrote: That sounds like a fantastic compilation, not just for practical knowledge, but I'm betting a little of history as well. Would you care to share it? :) At first I thought that's not a problem, if it is of any interest. But it includes pastes of setting up ssh, and sprinklings of bits and pieces which would need to be sanitised prior to publication - something that I'll have to try to find time for, one of these days. In any event, it is just a large grab-bag of memory joggers and small concise manpage extract distillations for rapid reference, plus debugging fixes for problems I've encountered. Slabs of it would be of little use to many, and none of it is in any way a complete reference on anything. It exists only so that I don't have to solve the same problem repeatedly, muttering futilely I know I've done this before. (It was a hint to the OP, that there are ways around forgetfulness, other than putting the burden on others.) Erik, Not a problem. I don't want to make you do any unnecesary editing/auditing of your work. It just seemed a nice bit of documentation. -- Eduardo Alvarez Stercus, Stercus, Stercus, moriturus sum -- Rincewind The Wizzard pgpXnNLttuh5s.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:58:16PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:51:13AM -0500, Dale A. Raby wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:35:25AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: I really don't need to be told RTFM. I am 80 yrs old. I forget things. [I think people should take note: this comment clearly suggests that Paul, like many people, has had negative experiences asking relatively simple questions on mailing lists like this one, if not this very one.] I am 56 and also forget things... that's maybe what manuals are for? ;) I normally just start Googling and usually find an answer somewhere. List requests work though. The problem with the RTFM answer is that TFM is (in many cases, and certainly in the mutt or emacs cases) rather long, and if you don't already know exactly what you're looking for, finding that one thing you need can take hours. Searching (your manual or google) is only as good as your ability to guess the right keywords, and if you didn't find it that means actually reading large sections of manual. When what you have is basically a 2-second question, reading the manual is a waste of time. Asking on a mailing list, where someone (or many someones) almost certainly knows the answer without looking it up, AND will reply to you usually in less than 5 minutes, while you go make yourself a nice cup of tea, is a much more productive and less frustrating way to solve the problem, and should be encouraged, not discouraged. Otherwise why are we here? For answers that take some effort, replying with RTFM is fine, if you're going to suggest where in TFM to look. If you can't be bothered to do at least that, then you should probably find some other way to spend your time--your answer isn't worth the time it took you to send it. If the answer can definitively be given by a couple of lines of text or less, then replying with RTFM is just making noise on the list that benefits ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. At the risk of raising everyones ire, there are times, especially with a really basic question and no indication of any effort on the poster's part, reply by asking what research has been done, what has been tried, and what were the error messages. Sometimes I will supply the url about asking smart questions (don't have it at hand). I'm on a list that has one of these people. He asks one basic question after another, usually of the form how do I ... The thing that gets me is that many people on the list trip over each other to hold this guy's hand. No one suggests that he put out *some* effort to find answers. I'm about to, which will bring down the wrath of the posters, but that's the way it goes. -- Bob Holtzman If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer. Key ID: 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: At the risk of raising everyones ire, there are times, especially with a really basic question and no indication of any effort on the poster's part, reply by asking what research has been done, what has been tried, and what were the error messages. Sometimes I will supply the url about asking smart questions (don't have it at hand). I assume you mean this one: http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html I'm on a list that has one of these people. He asks one basic question after another, usually of the form how do I ... The thing that gets me is that many people on the list trip over each other to hold this guy's hand. No one suggests that he put out *some* effort to find answers. I'm about to, which will bring down the wrath of the posters, but that's the way it goes. If there's people willing to trip over each other answering the guy's questions there's really no reason to do anything at all I think - if a question has been answered satisfactorily just leave it alone. Eventually, if or when people get tired of being a particular person's personal answering service that person will have to learn to find his own answers anyways. Threads like these just generate more noise. To be honest, I find the stackexchange / stackoverflow.com method of getting answers to questions far superior to mailing lists anyways - much greater search visiblity, and none of these problems - duplicate questions simply get merged or closed when discovered.
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:58:16PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:51:13AM -0500, Dale A. Raby wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:35:25AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: I really don't need to be told RTFM. I am 80 yrs old. I forget things. [I think people should take note: this comment clearly suggests that Paul, like many people, has had negative experiences asking relatively simple questions on mailing lists like this one, if not this very one.] Good point. Asking on a mailing list, where someone (or many someones) almost certainly knows the answer without looking it up, AND will reply to you usually in less than 5 minutes, while you go make yourself a nice cup of tea, is a much more productive and less frustrating way to solve the problem, and should be encouraged, not discouraged. Otherwise why are we here? But it's a two way street at least it should be. I gave the best answer I had since I also use Emacs with Mutt. But my answer wasn't acknowledged. I took the time to respond and I see my time wasn't appreciated. So now I'm very less likely to answer anything from this person in the future. It seems obvious to me it's proper to thank people who tried to help, whether you actually tried what they suggested or not. If you're 80 years old you grew up when things like manners and common courtesy were still admirable in all likelihood. Back to your subject, agreed RTFM posts aren't helpful. They only demonstrate the person posting the RTFM has more time than manners. In 95% of RTFM cases a helpful answer would take less effort and bandwidth than the rant that inevitably comes with their RTFM post! Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 I'll have a large pepperoni to go! /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary/ \http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
OT: Request for old cruft. [Was: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)]
On 21.06.13 10:52, Eduardo Alvarez wrote: That sounds like a fantastic compilation, not just for practical knowledge, but I'm betting a little of history as well. Would you care to share it? :) At first I thought that's not a problem, if it is of any interest. But it includes pastes of setting up ssh, and sprinklings of bits and pieces which would need to be sanitised prior to publication - something that I'll have to try to find time for, one of these days. In any event, it is just a large grab-bag of memory joggers and small concise manpage extract distillations for rapid reference, plus debugging fixes for problems I've encountered. Slabs of it would be of little use to many, and none of it is in any way a complete reference on anything. It exists only so that I don't have to solve the same problem repeatedly, muttering futilely I know I've done this before. (It was a hint to the OP, that there are ways around forgetfulness, other than putting the burden on others.) I'll try to tidy it up, before mentioning it again. Erik -- manual, n.: A unit of documentation. There are always three or more on a given item. One is on the shelf; someone has the others. The information you need is in the others. - Ray Simard
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
=- Derek Martin wrote on Thu 20.Jun'13 at 17:58:16 -0500 -= [I think people should take note: this comment clearly suggests that Paul, like many people, has had negative experiences asking relatively simple questions on mailing lists like this one, if not this very one.] True. I normally just start Googling and usually find an answer somewhere. List requests work though. The problem with the RTFM answer is that TFM is (in many cases, and certainly in the mutt or emacs cases) rather long, and if you don't already know exactly what you're looking for, finding that one thing you need can take hours. True. When what you have is basically a 2-second question, reading the manual is a waste of time. Depends. On our expectations from users using tools. We (especially the 2 of us) had discussed this before. We didn't agree. Now imagine _everyone_ would do the same 2 second-question rather than rtfm. The list would be flooded with such basic simple requests. (not to speak of not directly related to mutt itself) Wouldn't that be a waste of time for those trying to find the really needy cases: (closely) mutt-related and not (well) covered by docs? Asking on a mailing list, where someone (or many someones) almost certainly knows the answer without looking it up, AND will reply to you usually in less than 5 minutes, while you go make yourself a nice cup of tea, is a much more productive and less frustrating way to solve the problem, and should be encouraged, not discouraged. Otherwise why are we here? See above. But not to make one side happy and reject the other, how about this: we get 2 lists, one for the basicsimple stuff (mutt-users), the other for advanced (mutt-adventures). Have some moderators sitting on the basic- line forwarding the advanced stuff (users) to the other list. Would you volunteer? -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
On 21.06.13 10:13, Rado Q wrote: But not to make one side happy and reject the other, how about this: we get 2 lists, one for the basicsimple stuff (mutt-users), the other for advanced (mutt-adventures). Have some moderators sitting on the basic- line forwarding the advanced stuff (users) to the other list. Would you volunteer? It isn't always necessary to make a simple matter complicated. Most humans learn after a while how to identify a KLB, and anyway, netiquette already encourages an appeal for assistance to include some evidence of investigative effort prior to posting. It is not necessary for us to immediately identify every query which _might_ have been able to be answered by the poster, if he had known what keyword to look for, and in what documentation. It is only desirable to chastise any serial abuser of the list's patience - a KLB. Your lawyer's response, Rado, lacks practical merit. Many trivial keystroke combinations, tricks, and techniques are not explicitly documented in man or info pages. If googling for the OP's issue, whatever it was, gives a quick hit, then LMGTFY would have been another appropriate response, admittedtly. But taking a positive attitude to life, and helping an old bloke across the road, is not too great a burden for most who are blessed with a little more youthful energy and memory. (As we have seen.) The real and substantial impairments, both physical and mental, which accrue with advancing age, are easily overlooked in the ignorance of youth, or even middle age. Though two decades behind our petitioner for a quick hint, I have for a decade and a half found it necessary to accumulate a private multifarious manpage, or brain-fade-insurance, now amounting to 350 pages of stuff which has worked for me, but spans a quarter of a century of using dozens of unix utilities, scripting languages, cross-copilers, linker scripting, system administration, and embedded systems development, etc. Without that, I'd be asking a few more questions on the less hostile lists too. Ya can't remember it all, and in declining years, the time remaining looms in all its stark brevity. The increasing rate of wetware memory drop-outs in our autumn years becomes increasingly unnerving, and even figuring out where to look isn't as easy as it once was. I doubt that I'll be able to deal with computers at 80, despite earning my living with them and designing embedded systems for nearly three decades. My recommendation is: Cut the guy a bit of slack - you'll be there too one day - saying What?? Already?. That doesn't mean I'm any more patient than anyone else with someone younger than myself who just doesn't like reading manuals. Helping youngsters to self-educate is a service to them, if done in a positive way. It is hardly feasible to respond ideally in every case, but those who responded with a positive attitude helped to make the world a better place. Our list traffic is not yet unbearable, I submit. Erik -- A computer is like an air conditioner, it works poorly when you open Windows.
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
On 2013-06-20, Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:51:13AM -0500, Dale A. Raby wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:35:25AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: I really don't need to be told RTFM. I am 80 yrs old. I forget things. [I think people should take note: this comment clearly suggests that Paul, like many people, has had negative experiences asking relatively simple questions on mailing lists like this one, if not this very one.] I am 56 and also forget things... that's maybe what manuals are for? ;) I normally just start Googling and usually find an answer somewhere. List requests work though. The problem with the RTFM answer is that TFM is (in many cases, and certainly in the mutt or emacs cases) rather long, and if you don't already know exactly what you're looking for, finding that one thing you need can take hours. Searching (your manual or google) is only as good as your ability to guess the right keywords, And with emacs (the subject of the OP's question), I find this to often be precisely the problem. The only way to look up the answer is to already know how the answer is spelled. For this particular question, googling emacs reformat paragraph command gets you the answer in the summary shown for the first hit -- but that's only because I knew what phrase to google... :) -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Used staples are good at with SOY SAUCE! gmail.com
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
=- Erik Christiansen wrote on Fri 21.Jun'13 at 21:03:32 +1000 -= It is only desirable to chastise any serial abuser of the list's patience - a KLB. Your lawyer's response, Rado, lacks practical merit. Serial is not only limited to a single individual, serial can consist of many different individuals exhibiting the same behaviour, viewing from the receiver side, not sender. The sender changes, the behaviour not. I didn't get the lawyer reference. The practical merit is to provide both: saving time of the help seekers as well as of the providers. But taking a positive attitude to life, and helping an old bloke across the road, is not too great a burden for most who are blessed with a little more youthful energy and memory. (As we have seen.) Neither consider I the OP here is an abuser, nor that there should be no exceptions. I didn't respond to OP but to the idea to generally open the gates, independent of age or other good reason to spend my time more than any OPs (which I did long ago and sometimes still do). I fully agree that if rtfm is the answer, then a clue where in there should be included. Our list traffic is not yet unbearable, I submit. I've been to (over)flooded places, where it's hard to get responses for complex requests because they drown in the simple stuff, or to give 'em (hard to notice the rare tough cases, since I don't want to read through each one to find those not resolvable by rtfm). You can wait to see how bad it can be or act before. Been there, done that, don't want it again here. You might have noticed that I did _NOT_ jump on eachevery single case of off-topicness or rtfm-level requests, neither here nor IRC. It took me a bit, but I can accept the next generation to spend their energy on those cases rather than mine. ;) Just keeping it all in check. -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
Re: The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:03:32PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: The real and substantial impairments, both physical and mental, which accrue with advancing age, are easily overlooked in the ignorance of youth, or even middle age. Though two decades behind our petitioner for a quick hint, I have for a decade and a half found it necessary to accumulate a private multifarious manpage, or brain-fade-insurance, now amounting to 350 pages of stuff which has worked for me, but spans a quarter of a century of using dozens of unix utilities, scripting languages, cross-copilers, linker scripting, system administration, and embedded systems development, etc. Without that, I'd be asking a few more questions on the less hostile lists too. Ya can't remember it all, and in declining years, the time remaining looms in all its stark brevity. The increasing rate of wetware memory drop-outs in our autumn years becomes increasingly unnerving, and even figuring out where to look isn't as easy as it once was. That sounds like a fantastic compilation, not just for practical knowledge, but I'm betting a little of history as well. Would you care to share it? :) -- Eduardo Alvarez Stercus, Stercus, Stercus, moriturus sum -- Rincewind The Wizzard pgptQoKH7nJqC.pgp Description: PGP signature
The etiquette of RTFM (Re: I have forgotten ...)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:51:13AM -0500, Dale A. Raby wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:35:25AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: I really don't need to be told RTFM. I am 80 yrs old. I forget things. [I think people should take note: this comment clearly suggests that Paul, like many people, has had negative experiences asking relatively simple questions on mailing lists like this one, if not this very one.] I am 56 and also forget things... that's maybe what manuals are for? ;) I normally just start Googling and usually find an answer somewhere. List requests work though. The problem with the RTFM answer is that TFM is (in many cases, and certainly in the mutt or emacs cases) rather long, and if you don't already know exactly what you're looking for, finding that one thing you need can take hours. Searching (your manual or google) is only as good as your ability to guess the right keywords, and if you didn't find it that means actually reading large sections of manual. When what you have is basically a 2-second question, reading the manual is a waste of time. Asking on a mailing list, where someone (or many someones) almost certainly knows the answer without looking it up, AND will reply to you usually in less than 5 minutes, while you go make yourself a nice cup of tea, is a much more productive and less frustrating way to solve the problem, and should be encouraged, not discouraged. Otherwise why are we here? For answers that take some effort, replying with RTFM is fine, if you're going to suggest where in TFM to look. If you can't be bothered to do at least that, then you should probably find some other way to spend your time--your answer isn't worth the time it took you to send it. If the answer can definitively be given by a couple of lines of text or less, then replying with RTFM is just making noise on the list that benefits ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience. pgpuKqaSU5jak.pgp Description: PGP signature
On RTFM
Of course one should always check the manual and try a web search before asking for help. This is a given, and I don't think there's any argument. It's not always easy to find what you're looking for in the manual, and it's not always straightforward to construct a search query that yields what you're looking for. Your success varies with multiple factors: your facility with reading *and* with writing English, as noted; the way you're framing the problem in your mind; the character of the problem; the terminology involved; the organizational structure of the manual vs. the kind of problem you're trying to solve; your existing familiarity with the subject and with the reference material available. These can interplay to make one person's search fruitless, or to suggest that further search will be fruitless, while another person might come up with the answer right away. So a person posts to a list that is nominally for providing support, answers, and discussion. How can I fairly judge whether he's read the manual, or how deeply? Just based on my knowing where the answer is, and thinking he should have found it too? I don't think that's a fair measure. Yet I don't think it's the point, either. Even if someone has not done his own legwork, how is anyone's time well spent for me to tell them publically to do so? I don't see that, as someone suggested, this is helpful. It's condescending. It's saying: it's there, you missed it. Look again. But I won't say where to look because I think the exercise of finding it yourself is good for you, grasshopper. Even in this thread, Bill's question just by being asked has sparked original discussion of other approaches than what you'll find in the manual. Is there no value in that? Does anyone suggest some other way to obtain that benefit, besides having and expressing a need? It's absurd to say that you should not post a how-to question to a mailing list until you're sure the answer is not already out there, or prepared with your flame-retardant jammies. If I don't have time to help with a basic question, or I don't want to, or I resent the simplicity of the question or the way it was asked, I don't reply. It's simple, it causes no grief. The question, unanswered, has done me no harm. I am facile with my 'd' key. What's the trouble? Let people ask questions honestly and politely, but if all you have to give is rtfm, with no reference or citation or vague hint at a substantive answer, then don't bother replying -- or at least keep it out of the mailing list archive and my mailbox, please. Save RTFM for abusive and demanding inquiries only, and you'll see less abuse and fewer demands. -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: On RTFM
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 09:43:25AM -0500, David Champion wrote: What's the trouble? Let people ask questions honestly and politely, but if all you have to give is rtfm, with no reference or citation or vague hint at a substantive answer, then don't bother replying -- or at least keep it out of the mailing list archive and my mailbox, please. touch?? -- I just want to break even. pgpBQS840OSHg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: rtfm dammit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Actually my sig is at least ELEVEN lines, but hey, whose counting ? ( FYI - The last part of the sig has a word riddle in it) //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\ Linux is evitable? What's the sense on it? -- Bruno Lustosa, aka Lofofora | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Administrator/Web Programmer | ICQ UIN: 1406477 Rio de Janeiro - Brazil | msg30812/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: rtfm dammit
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 08:59:24AM -0400, Bruno Lustosa wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Actually my sig is at least ELEVEN lines, but hey, whose counting ? ( FYI - The last part of the sig has a word riddle in it) //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\ Linux is evitable? Linux is in evitable == Linux is inevitable. -- Mark REED| CNN Internet Technology 1 CNN Center Rm SW0831G | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Atlanta, GA 30348 USA | +1 404 827 4754 -- The things that interest people most are usually none of their business.
Re: rtfm dammit
* Bruno Lustosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-09 7:59am]: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Actually my sig is at least ELEVEN lines, but hey, whose counting ? ( FYI - The last part of the sig has a word riddle in it) //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\ Linux is evitable? What's the sense on it? I think it's supposed to be Linux is inevitable, since linux is in evitable. Could be wrong, but oh well. -- While I was looking around the nursery, I noticed that these were not normal children, but children specially bred by Dr. Panzari and his wife to be their family. -- Jack Handey, My Big Thick Novel, Chapter 772
quote (was: rtfm dammit)
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:10:11AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote: Linux is in evitable == Linux is inevitable. Yes. Quote from John Maddog Hall circa 1994 Linux Lectures. (and quite true IMHO). Word riddles are different from a plain scrambles in that they require leaps of logic. Mark's answer is correct. The diagram of his logic (presented by the quote marks) is a little different from the way I would present it: Linux is in evitable Here's a simple one: mind matter = Mind over matter Sadly now everyone with a keyboard and access to Google now knows the answer. :) (you fools! Now look what you've done!) ;-) Next time I post a riddle in my sig I'll have to put a disclaimer in it to send answers directly to me for private verification. But that will make my sig even longer.. :-) -- Jeff Kinz, Director, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. [EMAIL PROTECTED] copyright 1995-2002. Use restricted to non-UCE uses. Any other use is an acceptance of the offer at http://www.ultranet.com/~jkinz/policy.html. [EMAIL PROTECTED] copyright 2002. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at http://users.rcn.com/jkinz/policy.html. (¬_ -o) //\eLviintuaxbilse/\\ V_/_ _\_V insert fancy schmancy ascii graphics here
Re: rtfm dammit
* On 2002.09.09, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], * Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 08:59:24AM -0400, Bruno Lustosa wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Actually my sig is at least ELEVEN lines, but hey, whose counting ? ( FYI - The last part of the sig has a word riddle in it) //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\ Linux is evitable? Linux is in evitable == Linux is inevitable. I dunno, I prefer the former. (Evitable just means avoidable -- it's the positive reverse and the root of inevitable. Unlike inevitable, though, you almost never hear it in common language.) And if we try hard enough, and are stout of heart, we can avoid and perhaps even survive Linux. That fills my flame-bait quota for the week. -- -D.We establised a fine coffee. What everybody can say Sun Project, APC/UCCO TASTY! It's fresh, so-mild, with some special coffee's University of Chicago bitter and sourtaste. LET'S HAVE SUCH A COFFEE! NOW! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please love CAFE MIAMI. Many thanks.
rtfm dammit (was: location of signature.)
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-06 11:52]: I also notice that neither list-reply nor group-reply works with the post I am responding to; I had to paste mutt-users into the Cc: line to reply to the list. Any ideas why? List reply ? there's a LIST REPLY ? Time for more RTM ! argh! (I'm afraid Elm is still programmed into my fingers, just like vi. :) and apparently the nine line signature with the trailing spaces is, too... so, fix your From+MID+sig and upgrade to mutt 1.4. or just go back to elm. some people should stay with elm, pine, whatever so you can recognize and filter them by the User-Agent header line. them using mutt just gives a false impression... *hrmpf* Sven [ntiboa]
Re: rtfm dammit
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 02:03:00PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-06 11:52]: List reply ? there's a LIST REPLY ? Time for more RTM ! argh! hee hee, you are SO easy to tweak! :) (I'm afraid Elm is still programmed into my fingers, just like vi. :) and apparently the nine line signature with the trailing spaces is, too... Actually my sig is at least ELEVEN lines, but hey, whose counting ? ( FYI - The last part of the sig has a word riddle in it) so, fix your From+MID+sig and upgrade to mutt 1.4. or just go back to elm. No Thanks, I'm happy with my from line,. I've used it that way for almost twenty years. As for upgrading to a newer version of mutt - yeah - whenever I upgrade my Linux distro I'll be happy to. Otherwise, I have a life with more than enough to do writing and promoting Open Source software instead of trying to turn people off from it. some people should stay with elm, pine, whatever so you can recognize and filter them by the User-Agent header line. them using mutt just gives a false impression... *hrmpf* Sven [ntiboa] Someday Sven will realize that mutt is a tool, not a religion. (maybe.. ) (Now where did I put my flameproof suit / ) -- Jeff Kinz, Director, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. [EMAIL PROTECTED] copyright 1995-2002. Use restricted to non-UCE uses. Any other use is an acceptance of the offer at http://www.ultranet.com/~jkinz/policy.html. [EMAIL PROTECTED] copyright 2002. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at http://users.rcn.com/jkinz/policy.html. (¬_-o) //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\ V_/_ _\_V
Re: rtfm dammit
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 02:30:12PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someday Sven will realize that mutt is a tool, not a religion. (maybe.. ) (Now where did I put my flameproof suit / ) Oh, I doubt it. We'll probably have self-appointed net cops with us as long as there's a net. Just watch them play in their sandbox and remember it's all part of the show. Works for me. dan -- Dan Resleremail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Science Dept. Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, VA 23284-3068 USA
