RE: DATAFILE?? now "RTFM"
- From: "Jacques Kilchoer" <Jacques.Kilchoer@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "oracle-l" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:51:04 -0700
I'm a very rare poster on the list, but I read it often.
I agree with Mr. McDonald.
When an RTFM question is asked, the proper answers, in my view, are
either:
a) a link to documentation
or
b) Nothing, if you think that the poster does not deserve an answer
Answering by belittling the person, or by a long post why this kind of
question is invalid, increases the noise to signal ratio that many
people are complaining about.
_____
De : oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Connor McDonald
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 comp.databases.oracle.server has become..
Other related posts:
