Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!oliveb!apple!voder!cullsj!david
From: david@cullsj.UUCP (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: Using EMS 4.0 with Windows
Summary: The Original Questioner sez: "Thanks for Nothing"
Message-ID: <560@cullsj.UUCP>
Date: 4 May 89 07:57:33 GMT
References: <558@cullsj.UUCP> <68600020@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <5649@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: Cullinet Software, San Jose, CA
Lines: 32

In article <5649@microsoft.UUCP>, philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) writes:
> 
> false, patently false.  rtfm.  
> 
>  Its described in tfm. 
> 
> As for the original question
>
> call whitewater group 

Yes, some stuff has been deleted, but you'd never miss it.

We don't seem to subscribe to comp.windows.ms here, so I must reply here
and hope it reaches you.
First of all, there's not enough time nor space to detail all the things 
wrong with tfm. Let me just say it stinks. No master index, no Quick-Guide
for advanced users, too many cross-references, etc. It makes me ill to even
discuss it.

When software manuals are no longer of help, I consult Usenet. In my 
experience, the expertise here exceeds that of most tech support groups,
and I don't have to listen to Lawrence Welk while I'm on hold.
And when an employee of the vendor of the problem software enters the
Net discussion, and can only say it's a "complex issue", "rtfm", and
call the other software vendor, I consider it validation of my opinion
that the Net is more helpful than most vendors (provided we can keep 
certain vendors off the Net).

Is it significant that you did not include a disclaimer?
Here's mine:

My opinions are mine, not theirs.