• From: Paul Drake <bdbafh@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: mcdonald.connor@xxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 01:42:29 -0400

On 10/20/05, Connor McDonald <mcdonald.connor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have no problem with pasting a link to the documentation as a response,
> but I disagree vehemently with "RTFM" as a response
> "RTFM" has the subtext to the poster that they were either
>  a) too lazy to look up the manuals
>  b) too stupid to look up the manuals
>  independent of whether or not that was the intention of your "rtfm"
> response.  Its become far too emotive a term - the moment you see "RTFM" in
> a thread, you rarely see any further sensible or technical discussion follow
> it.
>  Of course, maybe a poster IS a lazy sod, or has been swimming at the
> shallow end of the gene pool - that still does not make it a responders
> right to assert either.  "RTFM" is a responders way of saying "I could
> answer your question but I choose not to make the effort".... which is far
> better handled by simply not replying at all.
> I'd hate to see Oracle-L degenerate into the farcical slanging match that
> has become..


People that post with some information worthy of a reproducible test
case still attract some worthwhile replies on c.d.o.s.

(provided that they do not top post, Hans will reply).

I once spent 5 hours on a Sunday night assisting on a recovery with a
sysadmin with little to no oracle experience. He got a complete
recovery. A thank you was enough to make it worthwhile.

c.d.o.s is not a lost cause.

I will agree that a few posters dominate there that supply little or
no useful information.
A few posters (like yourself) keep the forum worth checking out.

In general, if a poster gets one good reply out of ten that answers
his/her question - isn't that good enough? If the poster dons the
asbestos undergarments ahead of time ... no one gets hurt.

If I didn't have mail filters in place on this mailing list, I would
The number of lazy-arsed posts here isn't exactly non-zero.
Its large.

One can reply with a "nice" phrase where one indicates the manual
where the poster should consult the appropriate documentation. One can
also take the direct approach where the clue-by-four is wielded.
Either may be appropriate, depending upon the circumstances.

As an author of a superb text, it seems to me that its your "job" to
take the high road.

As as bastard dba from hell, I do not feel that obligation.
I reply to questions that I find "interesting".
If I think that I have expertise to lend in a situation when I have
some time, I'll do so.
If the poster has done nothing, he/she can languish ... and learn.

Thanks to Mark for providing the (ESR) Eric Raymond page regarding
posting "good" questions.


> Connor McDonald
> ===========================
> email: connor_mcdonald@xxxxxxxxx
> web:
> "Semper in excremento, sole profundum qui variat"

Other related posts: