>>>>> "RW" == Raymond Wan <r....@aist.go.jp> writes:
RW> Well, how about this? If A posts a question, B replies but B is "flat RW> out wrong", then what if expert C replies but not to B's message, but RW> to A's? Less frustration for C and both A and B learn something RW> ... and maybe C will even get two "Thank you's" for the price of RW> one... Seems more productive and less stressful than taking it out on RW> B, isn't it?? not IMO. B needs to learn the correct way and i have seen many cases (usenet in particular) where B replies first and suckers (sometimes B is a troll) A into using the bad code. and even worse A thanks B for their help! so you have to both followup A's original post and B's bad code. RW> As someone who has been both A and B on _this_ very message board (C RW> -- not yet :-P ), I, for one, am glad that the person C at the time RW> (sorry, forgot who it was...) didn't take it out on me... you don't have to necessarily take it out but you do have to correct them. if they are genuinely trying to help that is nice but helping when you don't really know the best answer is an issue. this list has plenty of expert (of ALL levels :) so you don't have to jump in to help if you are even slightly unsure of yourself. that is one thing you can learn by lurking more which is always good for new members. uri -- Uri Guttman ------ u...@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com -- ----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------ --------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html --------- --------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com --------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org http://learn.perl.org/
