[udoprog]

I personally loath meta answers like "why are you doing X and asking Y" instead of wasting the equivalent typing of explaining why X and Y is a bad idea.

With that said, I usually find the most serious experts just quietly ignoring silly questions or trying to pry out the root of the problem through a constructive dialog. Why superior douchebags get satisfaction of showing of their superiority by bashing beginners has always been beyond me.

That said you really need a tough skin on IRC on some channels, and always take the topic to the letter. That usually indicates what type of people hang there and what type of messages are accepted.

[noibl]

> I personally loath meta answers like "why are you doing X and asking Y" instead of wasting the equivalent typing of explaining why X and Y is a bad idea.

That's funny; I'm more often annoyed by the second response because often X and Y are only generally bad, not universally bad. Even though the supportee should probably have an up-front justification, it's reasonable to check for one and avoid handing out an unfair critique.

[udoprog]

The point is being up front and to the point, in spirit with "don't ask to ask, just ask". Most of these meta-answers are founded in the belief that the asker doesn't know what they are asking. And by supplying another set of questions instead of just bluntly stating what you think, you are feebly trying to guard yourself from being wrong - which is something people hate to admit on IRC.

The better being that you explain that "X and Y is a bad idea" and getting a quick "No" in response (assuming the asker knows what he/shes asking), instead of having the asker having to going in to more (often unnecessary) detail.