Re: c.l.j.help charter

Bryce wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2005 18:26:32 -0700, "hawat.thufir@xxxxxxxxx"
> <hawat.thufir@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> Short, sharp responses in c.l.j.help. Not very short or sharp,
> >> maybe, but a bit impatient. Not the worst thing a person could
> >> do, but something to avoid.
> >
> >Coming at this from the other side, RTFM is rarely useful.
> >Theoritically, most any question can be answered with RTFM. Why
> >discuss anything if theres a RTFM answer? By that reasoning, the only
> >valid questions are questions without a RTFM answer. Those questions
> >are few and far between.
>
> IMHO, RTFM is ok, as long as a link is provided to show where to read
> it...
>
> --
> now with more cowbell

"netiquette"/manners is a funny thing. Kinda maybe the only rule is
that there's no rule that always works. RTFM is a cliche because,
well, it applies so frequently (?). It has its place, no doubt about
that.


-Thufir

.