Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!ginosko!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Re: Telling people to Read The F Manual
Message-ID: <14731@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 25 Sep 89 22:31:41 GMT
References: <14695@bfmny0.UU.NET> <130@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <14729@bfmny0.UU.NET> <1989Sep25.205459.28308@rpi.edu>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 21
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <1989Sep25.205459.28308@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
>In <14729@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
>Tom> Or mail, yes MAIL the guy a kind request to RTFM before posting?
>
>Here is something that many of us perceive to be a big problem with
>RTFM postings.  Do you really believe that RTFM is a kind request? ...

In this context "RTFM" is being used as shorthand for any response
directing the questioner to offline docs instead of reproducing their
contents on the net.  It needn't include that acronym or its implied
rudeness.  In particular, it didn't in the posting that started this
discussion, although the umbrage taken by one or two posters might lead
a reader without access to the original article to guess otherwise.

Actually "RTM" would be a kindler and gentler equivalent acronym.

There is just this little problem with the initials "RTM" these days!
:-)
-- 
I'm a Leo.  Leos don't believe    *  *  *     Tom Neff
    in this astrology stuff.        *  *  *   tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET