There's more than one way to do things | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I may as well weigh in on this one, too. First: I like RTFM nodes. That is, I like to see terse replies of the form "Here's the FM, read it or go away". I try to make a habit of upvoting these nodes, because they're incredibly high in signal and low in noise. They give the newbie valuable information -- a pointer to the appropriate documentation, and quite often suggestions for how best to use said docs -- and they don't waste any time repeating what's been said ten thousand times already. "RTFM" without even a hint as to which FM is to be read is not especially useful, and I think it's those nodes that you're complaining about. And that's the problem: I only think that I know what nodes you're complaining about. I don't know, I don't even have any examples. Granted, I don't grovel through Seekers of Perl Wisdom and the dozens (hundreds?) of nodes that it generates on a daily basis, so I may have missed an underground explosion of incivility, but you (whoever you are) obviously haven't: please, point me to all of these "rude", "worthless", "elitist", "XP-whoring" nodes. I've missed them, and from the sounds of it they're well worth my downvotes. From what I've seen -- and though I try to be diligent in my studies of the FM and CPAN and the like, I've managed to post some pretty dumb questions -- the nodes you're complaining about exist more in myth than in reality. You obviously have a more than passing familiarity with Perl Monks, and likely a strong command of the site's linking conventions. Show me the problem, and I'll support you without hesitation. I don't want this site to turn into a slashdot s/Linux/Perl/g any more than you do. Put up or shut up. -- In reply to Re: Reactionary Posting
by FoxtrotUniform
|
|