Bryan,
I find your responses to Melanie quite shortsighted. In the short time I have been a member of this forum, I have read countless posts from Melanie (and many others) containing great information and answers. However, as Alain pointed out, this forum is not about giving people cookie cutter answers (but that does happen). Nor is it a place to substitute for someones lack of effort. It is more about helping people work through the process of application and understanding.
As you can deduce from my avatar, I am a Pilot. More accurately, for the last 10 years I have been an instructing pilot teaching others to fly. It is quite common for me to respond to a student's question with some version of RTFM, particularly when the question involves simple factual information which is easlily located (or when I preceive a lack of effort in learning the information). On the other hand, if a student has a question related to the application of what is in the manual, then I get excited. Now I can really do my job and help them work through the question/problem to get the answers. In the process, hopefully, they will learn more than just the answer to their question. That is exactly what I have seen on this forum, and why I consider it a key resource in my PIC education.
Is the response "RTFM" used too often by some, or employed rudely and indiscriminatly? Perhaps. But is that a reason to discount all the insightful, and FREE, help that is provided by the active (and very cabable) members of this group? Certainly not.
As for this thread, Melanie's second post was spot on, and not mocking at all. It did not reject the technique given, just pointed out that it
had considerable weaknesses in application, and may not be appropriate for your intended application.
As for me, thanks Melanie, Alain, Steve (mister_e), Darrel, ErnieM, and the many others I can't remember off the top of my head. I have learned a lot from your contributions.
Steve
Bookmarks