On 20/08/2009, at 9:39 AM, Gavin Simpson wrote:
<snip>
Criticising correct, if cryptic or highlevel, responses to a list
where
people give their time for free, *and* not provide a more complete
solution is unfair, Rolf. The OP is free to respond and ask for
additional help once they've given it a go if they are still having
trouble..
When the ``correct response'' is seriously misleading, as
this one was --- the implication of the response was that
the specified task *could* be done (if one looked hard
enough at the help files), when in fact the specified task
can't be done (at least not without substantial hacking)
--- then I think criticism is merited.
Also when a clear answer (``It can't be done.'') is as easy to
give as an obscurantist misleading one (``RTFM'') then criticism
is merited.
There is a difference between saying RTFM to a poster who has
clearly been too lazy to do his or her homework and saying RTFM
to a poster when TFM is not at all clear with respect to the
question posed. There are so many arguments to bxp() that anyone
might be forgiven for thinking ``There must be a way to do what
I want; I just haven't twigged to the correct way of putting
these arguments together.'' Deliberately steering a new user
into such a misapprehension is unforgivable.
cheers,
Rolf Turner
######################################################################
Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dropped:9}}
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
