Thrill5 said:
My "rant" was directed only to the bullies that like to ridicule
posters because *they think* someone asked a dumb question.
Exactly my point. When regulars make mistakes, you describe them as
"bullies" who "like to ridicule" people. You refuse to consider that
it was an honest mistake brought about by misinterpreting the OP's
question; instead, you whine and rant about a hidden agenda that
exists only in your imagination.
was a valid one and the reply *quote*
*end quote* offers no help to anyone.
I'm not saying it did. What I find offensive is your claim that it was
a deliberate attack by someone who's just being a bully.
How does he know if the OP spent 2 hours
researching or spent none?
Well, given that Tad's response was off the mark, it's pretty obvious
that he *doesn't* know that 100%. Mistakes happen. *Your* mistake is
assuming that his response was intentional bullying.
Why does it that matter anyway?
Speaking for myself, I believe that being able to navigate reference
material is the single most useful skill that a programmer can have,
in any language. Operating systems, languages, and toolkits come and
go, far too quickly for anyone to do more than absorb general concepts
and principles; that makes it critical for a programmer to be able to
look up the relevant details on an as-needed basis.
So, when I answer someone's question with a reference to the docs, I
do so because I believe it's helpful on two levels. First, there's the
short-term help of answering their immediate question, and second, I
think it's helpful to encourage the long-term development of what I
consider to be a critical skill.
I think that most of the regulars are thinking along similar lines,
and trying to offer what we think is the most helpful advice we can
give. Sometimes we fail in the attempt, and our advice isn't as
helpful as it could be; but that's just a failure in execution, not
evidence of ill intent.
sherm--