Yeah but that is derived from RTFA or RTFM, but that meaning doesn't apply here at all.
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.
> Yeah but that is derived from RTFA or RTFM, but that meaning doesn't apply here at all.
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.])
