Date:         Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:02:18 -0700
Reply-To:     Cassell.David@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         "David L. Cassell" <Cassell.David@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>
Subject:      Re: Questioners (was: Re: 3sls with ar(1) )
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

John Whittington <John.W@MEDISCIENCE.CO.UK> replied to me [in part]:
> David, I agree that there are many legitimate reasons (such as you
have
> suggested) for asking questions 'instead' of getting the answer from
the
> documentation.  Perhaps one of the most common (to which you have
eluded)
> is that, in the absence of extremely well-designed indexing (and the
SAS
> documentation is not famous for that!), it's often very difficult to
look
> up the answer to a question (e.g. of the form 'is there a way to do
XYZ, or
> a function that does XYZ..." etc. etc.) unless one already knows the
> answer!  (a bit like trying to use a dictionary to look up the
spelling of
> a word which one knows sounds like "sore-eye-esis" :-)

I agree.  In fact, I thought I had listed a category for this very case.

> However, I think you are perhaps being a bit unduly harsh on those you
are
> perceiving as simply 'lazy'.  If I am working in physical proximity of
a
> group of colleagues, I will very often throw out a question to them of
the
> form 'does anyone happen to know ...', even if I have the facilities
and
> ability to 'go and look it up' if I have to - and I would expect my
> colleagues to do the same.  Yes, in some senses it's 'lazy', but why
spend
> (possibly appreciable) time 'looking something up' if the person
standing
> next to you might be able to tell you the answer off the top of
his/her
> head?  Somewhere there is a subtle line between 'laziness' and
'efficient'
> ...

While we have disagreed on several things in the past, I agree most
strenuously
with you on this one.  There is a real difference between those who
throw out
a quick question, and those who really are being time-thieves.  But I
thought
I made a distinction between the two.  But I think that distinction is
crystal
clear in many people's posts.  When a single individual asks again and
again for
help, never doing his/her own work but each time regurgitating the work
of
previous posters, it is hard to believe that person is just tossing out
a quick
question.  When a person demands help, and asks for it by a deadline
[like "I need
this by tomorrow"] it is hard to see this as just a quick question,
lightly tossed
out.  And when the question is so basic that it is clearly a homework
problem,
then the source of the deadline becomes obvious.  When someone asks a
'quick question'
and shows the work they have already done, that indicates someone is
doing real
work, and is actually trying.  But when someone repeatedly (both on- and
off-list)
tries to get you to do his/her work, more or less in its entirety, that
is clear
evidence of time-thievery.

If I hadn't ever had to deal with such people when I was teaching, this
might
not bother me as much as it does.  When a student does this, it is
called
'cheating'.  When a worker does this, I wonder if that person spent
his/her
entire college career learning only how to sponge off the hard work of
others.
Scott Adams once had a Dlibert character named Floyd Remora who
exemplified this.
Not being that creative, and being an even worse artist than Mister
Adams, I'll
settle for calling these people time-thieves.

[Not to be confused with "Time Bandits"...]
David
--
David Cassell, CSC
Cassell.David@epa.gov
Senior computing specialist
mathematical statistician