side note: I am confused by your usage of "TFA". I looked it up and it stands for what I thought it does, which has a pejorative connotation. That doesn't seem to be what you meant?
I think the people using TFA don't know what it means... Whenever I see that I think they are angry about something or arguing, but he's instead supporting the point of the article. Doesn't make sense.
The meaning of the "TFA" part does. The meaning of the "R" doesn't, which is why it is dropped.
> I think the people using TFA don't know what it means...
They generally do. You, however, seem to be confusing "derived from" with "means the same as". TFA is derived from RTFA, but it does not mean RTFA, nor does the argumentative implication of RTFA come along with it, since the argumentative implication is associated primarily with the implicit accusation that the target has not done what is expected in a discussion and read the source material that is the subject of discussion, which is carried entirely by the "R".
(One can read anger into the "F", but that's tamed by the fact that even in the context of RTFA/RTFM, that's often reconstructed into a non-profane alternative ["fine" is the one I've most frequently encountered.])
Some of us here have been using terms like RTFA and TFA for twenty years, maybe longer.
HTH.
While I am a conservative christian myself (hah, most of you didn't guess that) I try to make a point out of not getting offended for such things, and if I can do it so can most people :-)