I agree Steve but I don't think anyone is dismissing anyone else.
There are always several ways to skin a cat and dismissing one over
the other is where the danger is. I know exactly what both points of
view are trying to say. As long as "newbies" don't take a link as FU,
I'm sure we'll all be fine. That's what links are for. To save typing
it in again. If the "newbie" takes it as if I typed the whole thing
myself ( plagerizing it) then all will be fine.OTOH, if I type a short
answer and the newbie doesn't think I have time for him or he doesn't
interpret my short answer as FU then we'll be fine too. I'm more of
the type where I'd rather someone give me the whole enchillada and let
me peruse it at my own leisure. Then if I still have questions about
the details I won't feel shy about asking them.

Bob

On Dec 31, 1:18*pm, spud > wrote:
> OTOH pointing a fellow to an endless wealth of information is no small
> aid IMO. *In fact one could argued more helpful than a quick one shot
> answer. *That might leave the helper feeling good about their deed,
> but certainly the helpee is nowhere as educated than if directed to
> the wealth of info available to them. * *
>
> In additon to Lum's book and Keller's site: *http://www.geocities.com/lumeisenman...ackkeller.net/
>
> there's 2 amazing FAQ's one for wine making:http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/alcohol/winemaking-faq
>
> and one for grape growing:http://vitfaq.vinic.com/gohome.html
>
> And last but not leat the Advanced Seach feature for Usenet:http://groups.google.com/advanced_se...e=UTF-8&hl=en&
>
> Here is the accumulated knowledge of rcw, with detail knowledge and
> EXPERIENCE in the specific and esoteric as well as detailed answers
> for entry level and novice wine maker. *
>
> Frankly I think providing these resources to a novice is much more
> valuable than the usual 'buy a kit and follow directions' advice.
> Who's really dismissing the noobie here?
>
> Steve
> Oregon
>
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:17:26 -0500, "Paul E. Lehmann"
>
> > wrote:
> >frederick ploegman wrote:
>
> >> It's the newbies that keep this group going.
> >> All too often lately,
> >> they are being told to "go get googled". *Some
> >> interpret this as the equivalent of "go get
> >> F***** ", and they take their questions
> >> to friendlier places. *I, for one, would like to
> >> see the use of
> >> google as an answer be outlawed in this group !!
> >> *(personal opinion of one grouchy old fart)
>
> >I AGREE 100%
>
> >One of the nice things about this news group is
> >that there are those of us out here will answer
> >questions - even though it has been asked many
> >times before. *I hope we NEVER become like some
> >of the other newsgroups with answers like "Read
> >the FAQs" or "Google it". *Sometimes the answer
> >to an old question can be such that it leads to
> >new understandings or brings up issues that a
> >plain "Search Google" does not reveal. *For those
> >who find it irritating to see repeated questions
> >the answer is simple - just don't read them or
> >reply.