Quoting directly from the document:
> you are one of the idiots we are talking about
> leave us alone and everybody will be happier
> What we are, unapologetically, is hostile to
> We call people like this “losers” (and for historical reasons we sometimes spell it “lusers”).
> J. Random Hacker is quite likely to reply with a uselessly literal answer while thinking “Stupid question...”, and hoping the experience of getting what you asked for rather than what you needed will teach you a lesson.
> Stupid:
> we can't be bothered
> will make you come off like a giggly teenage girl, which is not generally a good idea unless you are more interested in sex than answers
The entire section entitled "RTFM and STFW: How To Tell You've Seriously Screwed Up", especially things like:
> You shouldn't be offended by this; by hacker standards, your respondent is showing you a rough kind of respect simply by not ignoring you. You should instead be thankful for this grandmotherly kindness.
> The same place I'd find it, fool
> J. Random Hacker's response to this is likely to be “Right. Do you need burping and diapering, too?”
> While muttering RTFM is sometimes justified
(no, it isn't)
- Terms like "ruthless" used as praise.
- Numerous attempts to praise lack of basic decency and excuse bad behavior in the community.
- A pervasive "us" and "you" approach to othering the lowly petitioner, despite claiming to want to welcome them.
The above is a partial list of reasons why not to recommend that particular document, and why to seek out and recommend better ones. I've seen people recommend this particular document while simultaneously attempting to excuse it; better would be to write it off as a hopeless bit of elitist historical interest, recommend better documents that already exist, and update any such documents to include any useful information that they might lack.