Byron Jeff wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:48PM -0500, Mike Hord wrote:
>   
>> The bar for RTFM, IMO, has gotten too low.  The point of a forum like
>> this is that, while Google DOES frequently know the answer, and it
>> usually IS in TFM, neither of those facts is helpful if I can't trick Google
>> or TFM into yielding the answer- a 250-page datasheet or 1.7 million
>> search results are too large a pool to be useful.
>>     
>
> Often that is true. The problem is that it is difficult to distiguish those
> who have tried and failed (actually it's not too hard, often they say
> exactly that) and those who are frankly of the attitude "Peasant you are
> here to do my bidding, now get me my grapes!"
>
>   
>> If I ask a question, it's because I haven't been able to get Google or
>> the manual to yield the info.  OR, it's because I'm seeing bizarre
>> behavior, but I don't even know where to look for insight into that
>> behavior in a datasheet and Google is of no help.  I'm not asking you
>> to look it up in a datasheet for me- if you know the answer, or know
>> where it is in the datasheet, great.  If not, don't say anything.
>>
>> RTFM is shorthand for "I'm better than you but I don't have time to
>> prove it".  IMO, anyone responding in a public forum who is anything
>> but courteous in their conduct (at least, in the first message) is
>> responding for the wrong reason- out of a desire to prove personal
>> superiority rather than to be genuinely helpful.
>>     
>
> That's not entirely true. Sometimes it's a teachable moment for "at least
> make the effort to show that you tired to look it up for yourself instead
> of being a selfish ingrate."
>
> All that's required is the common courtesy say stating where you have
> looked and what you tried.
>
> My problem with all this is that all of the call for courtesy is on the
> respondant, but none seems to apply to the petitioner. 
>
> When you post on this list, there are thousands that will see it. If you
> can't take 2 minutes to either look it up yourself or to take the time to
> describe how you in fact tried to solve the problem.
>
> And the problem with saying nothing is two words: tacit approval. By saying
> nothing, it gives the petitioner the very wrong impression that their
> behavior is acceptable.
>
> How hard is it to say "I looked here, and here, and here, and this is why
> where I looked did not apply to my problem."? It shows that you took the
> time to try to solve the problem yourself.
>
> And that is exactly what RTFM is trying to tell the petitioner to do.
>
> BAJ
>   

So much interesting discussion about etiquette.....

I like the well analogy..... and it will work for my 'issue' with the 
RTFM....

Piclist is for *all* subscribers, not just the 'petitioner', and the 
'respondant'....

The 'petitioner' demands a drink, and you decide that the manner of 
delivery deserves the 'RTFM' type response....

Do you ...
1. email all 2000 other people with a message that means nothing to 
them, adds no value to their lives....
2. email the guy offlist and say whatever you want to communicate....
3. add value to the list and provide an answer or pointer that some 
future newbie can find in a search engine like piclist/google so that it 
does not have to happen again.... (even if that answer includes RTFM 
with a pointer to TFM...).

As far as I am concerned, the plain RTFM answer wastes 2000 peoples time 
as much as the silly question, and worse, it pollutes the archives so 
the next person can't find the answer for the noise.


RTFM is as bad as or worse than a dumb question.... it is a dumb 
answer.... there's no such thing as a dumb question, but dumb answers 
abound....

Rolf
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist