Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option

by woolfy (Hermit)
on Nov 25, 2003 at 00:03 UTC ( #309756=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: No Anonymous Reply Option
in thread No Anonymous Reply Option

Well, that's what the request is about, isn't? Ignoring anonymous posts.

No, it was not about ignoring them, but about making it completely impossible to reply anonymously to a node.

The next step might be to make it completely impossible to be anonymous. Which I would not like.

I think this site is very tolerant, of which this thread is a good example: it is polite, substantial, humorous, informative. No insults.

As for anonymous monk teasing, well, I haven't seen much 'teasing'. Insults, yes. Teasing? Nope. Besides, only cowards tease anonymously.

No teasing? Oh?. Your threshold for considering something an insult might be a bit lower than mine. I think "coward" is a very big word, somewhat insulting. And regarding insults or demeaning stuff, let the innocent ones throw the first stone, brick, pebble, rock (lets not do a menhir).

And yes, some anonymous posts are brilliant, but some non-anonymous posts are as well. Being anonymous isn't necessary to post a brilliant article.

So? The Worst Nodes of all time contains no posts of anonymous monks (neither does Best Nodes of all time). You don't have a point here.

Too much fuss about anonimity. Really.


Comment on Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option
Re: No Anonymous Reply Option
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Nov 25, 2003 at 07:47 UTC
    I think this site is very tolerant, of which this thread is a good example

    I guess that explains the -36 of the top node in this thread.

    Abigail

      No, that offers no explanation to me why this thread is intolerant. The first 4 anonymous replies (the ones I mentioned earlier) have a combined rep of 99 at the time of this writing. At the time of this writing, the other anonymous replies have a combined rep of 46. All 13 anonymous replies have a positive rep. Your 7 nodes have a combined rep of -17 (still, 2 of them have a positive rep).

      There's a lively discussion here, lots of arguments, lots of appreciation for the arguments themselves, and even though many people disagree with you (and artist and zengargoyle and others), they still value the way you present your arguments.

      In an intolerant website, there might be a flame-war, much more -- rep, or maybe the whole thread would be ignored. It isn't, obviously. These monks are civilized people, -- when the disagree, ++ when they agree (or disagree but appreciate efforts and arguments). And as far as I've seen, seldom with a grudge.

      No, the -36 is explained by many monks thinking the suggestion is a bad idea.

        more likely the 36 that use Anonymous. most don't care to post to such a thread, it's another in a long line of the same about things that have near to no possibility of changing mostly because nobody has the time to make them anyway.

        i just wanted to chime in on the "no i don't really care for the anonymous user" side in case there's ever a rewrite.

        somebody up there would have to spend a lot of time to make any such changes, it's a doubtful proposition.

        besides, there's not much Perl

        $posts = { 'user' => [ 1..1000 ], 'another' => [ 1..300 ], 'junk1' => [ 1 ], 'junk2' => [ 1 ], 'junk3' => [ 1 ], 'anonymous' => [ 1..20000 ], }

        luckily there's a date and title, otherwise anonymous would really suck.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://309756]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-08-01 07:26 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (257 votes), past polls