Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: newbie 2Ques- SQL procedure calling another proc and Select statement

Re: newbie 2Ques- SQL procedure calling another proc and Select statement

From: BD <robert.drea_at_gmail.com>
Date: 15 Oct 2006 14:48:26 -0700
Message-ID: <1160948905.920776.73080@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

> First of all: please do not top-post.

Pretty sure I didn't. But I'll keep that advice in mind. It's not something I do often, if I indeed did so.

> Secondly: if I search for FAQ in this group, I get 2920 hits, with the
> two FAQs available as first two URLs, so I think your assertion you got
> only 1 hit is hard to believe, very hard.

I meant that the only regular result was the one listed in the SIG. If this is what you meant as the FAQ for the group, then that's fine. However, I would consider that to be rather 'inside' information... a de facto FAQ being found via a link in the SIG of a regular poster, and no regular reference made to it on the group... Not exactly a straightforward way of conveying information.

Might I suggest, then, that when you are faced with a question which you consider to be a 'RTFM' question, you simply refer them to that document, and save the critical comments for after a person repeats the 'offending' behavior at least once? IE start with a carrot, and use a stick if necessary... common courtesy, nothing more.

To the point: reading through one of Jonathan's posts (dated '02), he says: "RTFM is always a valid answer - though we would hope that it would be phrased in a reasonably friendly way, and accompanied by a URL or other pointer to the appropriate bit of the manual."

Just a suggestion, Sybrand, but your approach ventures pretty far from 'reasonably friendly'. Even if you choose not to include a link, you could SO easily alter your message to be less confrontational. That you choose the confrontational approach as the first step is truly unfortunate.

As to me taking over responsibilities for supplying a FAQ - It's not me who's trying to police the group by criticizing more fundamental or 'basic' questions - that would be you. I suggest that there are *far* more effective ways to do this than the route you have chosen.

BD Received on Sun Oct 15 2006 - 16:48:26 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US