python to exe
cmpython at gmail.com
Sun Mar 14 22:22:22 CET 2010
On Mar 14, 4:04 pm, David Monaghan <monaghand.da... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:10:32 -0600, John Bokma <j... at castleamber.com> wrote:
> >David Monaghan <monaghand.da... at 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.
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.
More information about the Python-list