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/
> http://winemaking.jackkeller.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

There is nothing to prevent both - A simple answer
to a question asked before plus links. I just
hate the "Read the FAQs" or Google It" answers
when a quick response with the answer and yes,
links to resources is much more polite, better
overall and does not take any more time than a
rude reply.


>
>
>
>
> 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.