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