On Mar 14, 4:04 pm, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:10:32 -0600, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote: > >David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> of Google. If they haven't used it, I don't really consider the gentle > >> reminder that LMGTFY gives too harsh. If you do, you're too much of a > >> gentle > >> soul to be on the internet at all; someone might say "Boo" to you at any > >> moment. Beware. > > Sorry. That last comment of mine was uncalled for. > > >I've no problem with lmgtfy. I *do* have a problem with hiding it behing > >a tinyurl. Why use 2 levels of obfuscating in a group that's about > >programming in a language that promotes clear coding? > > >The message would have been the same if the OP had just copy pasted the > >Google link. But hey, that's way less "funny". > > Good point, although one could argue the unhidden response is just rude, but > the masking does make it genuinely funny. > > DaveM
I thought the point of LMGTFY was to humorously and innocuously get across the point that a lot of basic questions can be answered instantly, or just a few key terms and a mouse click away (i.e. "Was that so hard?") instead of having to write and post a message to a group and then wait for responses. In this sense, using LMGTFY *is* a memorable transmission of information beyond just the answer to the question. It is the meta-information of how to "teach a man to fish". If someone "LMGTFY'ed" me due to my asking a really Googleable question, I'd feel I deserved this gentle ribbing and would make a note to be more diligent in my searches before asking a forum. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list