Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

monastery mark-upedness

by my_nihilist (Sexton)
on Mar 21, 2008 at 13:29 UTC ( #675409=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Since i never expect to hear back from ww, can someone please confirm that his/her confusion in Re^3: newbies, <code> tags and recognizing perl is not mine? There ARE NO UNCLOSED TAGS IN MY POST, nor is there anything "bizarre" about my use of emphasis.

Unless my_preview != your_preview (IS THIS A BROWSER ISSUE?)
{ww is an ass}

Update: There are badly closed XML tags in my post! There are no unclosed HTML tags! (whoops!) But, as jdporter points out, indeed my_preview ne your_preview, so train or no train, {ww ne "an ass"}. I won't ask "why have a preview if all previews are not the same?" because i've got enough downvotes for today and so can't afford to ask any more reasonable questions.

To clarify, my point in Re^4: newbies, <code> tags and recognizing perl (adjunct) about <pre> has to do with preserving the literal appearance of:

<code>

nb. you can't use the &entities within <code> GET IT?!!

Comment on monastery mark-upedness
Re: monastery mark-upedness
by halfcountplus (Hermit) on Mar 21, 2008 at 13:39 UTC

    your original post in Re^2: newbies, <code> tags and recognizing perl looks fine to me (other than the fact that you just repeat BrowserUk's content; i won't cast a stone regarding the right or wrongness of "look, i said too" esp. since BrowserUk was re-iterating a point made by Roy Johnson). nb. I also use linux/mozilla.

    my_nihilsit and I are not the same person, b/t/w. If anyone wants more of an explanation for this see my home node.

Re: monastery mark-upedness
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 21, 2008 at 14:13 UTC
    I don't think it matters whether my_nihilist is right or wrong; i just don't like his/her attitude.

    But i can't prove a thing and have nothing more to say :P
      woops, sorry... I spoke too soon. I always have more to say. ;-)

      This struck me as trollish, sounding like somebody replying to themselves while pretending to be somebody else. Checking showed that all three nodes in this thread were posted from the same IP (the nodes by my_nihilist, Anonymous Monk, and halfcountplus). This also confirmed my increasing impression that the interactions between my_nihilist and halfcountplus in the chatterbox sounded like somebody talking to themselves.

      So, you wanted more attention, feeling the need to take a discussion in a sub-thread and escalate it into a new root node. So, now you have even more reason to get that extra attention.

      As to your supposed original complaint, you didn't even link to the proper node, the one that was accused of having unclosed tags: Re^2: newbies, <code> tags and recognizing perl. If you go to display settings and turn on "Enforce proper nesting of HTML" and set "HTML error reporting level" to 3, then you'll be able to see quite a few reports for mis-nested tags in Re^2: newbies, <code> tags and recognizing perl.

      And you don't need to use PRE tags to get </code> to appear in "code", just use <c> tags like <c></code></c>.

      (FYI, missing word added before the appearance of reply urging "you should proofred beter".)

      - tye        

        Just to toss out an idea: one thing I've seen on some blogs to discourage this sort of sock-puppetry is to display a hash of the posting IP along with either all posts or just those from unregistered / anonymous commenters. That way you know that the "dazzling witty" comment that 4 "different" commenters are all "independently" praising all came from the same source.

        The cake is a lie.
        The cake is a lie.
        The cake is a lie.

        "Checking showed that all three nodes in this thread were posted from the same IP (the nodes by my_nihilist, Anonymous Monk, and halfcountplus)."

        well aren't you the clever one. I hope the reason for this is the one you want (honest). Is that unusual?

        "This also confirmed my increasing impression that the interactions between my_nihilist and halfcountplus in the chatterbox sounded like somebody talking to themselves."

        I think you should take a pill tye, rather than fret over garbage like that, and who the people sharing IP addresses might be.

        "As to your supposed original complaint, you didn't even link to the proper node, the one that accused of having unclosed tags: Re^2: newbies, <code> tags and recognizing perl."

        I linked to a relevent node. It's not as if i linked to "an improper node" (which you seem to imply). Also, tye this sentence is bad english, you should proofred beter.

        "And you don't need to use..."

        Now that is a good & useful piece of advice. Thank you.

Re: monastery mark-upedness
by jdporter (Canon) on Mar 21, 2008 at 14:18 UTC

    OK, first of all, you need to calm down, and consider the fact that folks like ww have been here a lot longer than you and probably understand things about how this site works that you have no clue about.

    There ARE NO UNCLOSED TAGS IN MY POST

    In fact, there are some improperly closed tags in your post, specifically, a few occurrences of the sequence <i><b>...</i></b>. (You've also got a couple other minor HTML infractions, such as not closing your <li> tags and not enclosing your <li> list in <ul> tags.)

    Now, you would know this, just as ww knew it, if you had your HTML error reporting levels cranked up in your Display Settings.

    i used <pre> tags to preserve the <code> in what appears to be in <code>

    If you looked closely*, you'd realize that your post is not the same as BrowserUK's post: you used <pre> tags where he used <c> tags. Yes, <c> tags. Which you would have and should have known about if you had ever actually read Writeup Formatting Tips. This is precisely why the gods invented the <c> tag, and why the admonition against using <pre> tags is not as lightly waived as you'd like to imagine.

    * To look closely, view the "real source" of the writeup by clicking the xml link below the node's title.

    A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

      "ww have been here a lot longer than you and probably understand things about how this site works that you have no clue about"

      • in theory. jdporter is setting himself up to make an unavoidably redundant, hence excessively verbose, point. Or maybe you don't understand me.

      "In fact, there are some improperly closed tags in your post, specifically, a few occurrences of the sequence <i><b>...</i></b>. (You've also got a couple other minor HTML infractions, such as not closing your <li> tags and not enclosing your <li> list in <ul> tags.)

      The first point: That is bad XML,, not bad HTML. The second point: guilty! But ww can't be bothered to address that specifically and it should work under NORMAL conditions. You can "crank your conditions up" beyond those of WC3 but i won't waste more time quoting 4.01 specification.

      "If you looked closely*, you'd realize that your post is not the same as BrowserUK's post:"

      What gets said after that i think demonstrates some reading comprehension problem for jdporter (consider: relevence). Or mine. Or both. But use <c>tags i will (thanks).

      "the "real source" of the writeup by clicking the xml link "

      I think we have arrived at the real source of my problems and i apologize. However, it does not say in Writeup Formatting Tips to obey XML syntax (XML is not even mentioned!) The xml is a vague "clue" at best if this is a real concern.

      A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

      who are you, Plato?

      ps. If these are real issues then you should permit an un-penalized discussion (as Anonymous Monk suggested) -- but i suspect the point is actually just to permit "new users" to repeatedly make such mistakes so ww and jdporter can drop in with admonisments and corrections and then vote for each other. Now that's gansta

      Another option (really, i would): Just put if you're not us go away on the monastery gates.


      hmph.
        who are you, Plato?

        It's just a quote. By somebody else. People put such things in their sigs, you know. I give attribution on my homenode.

        it does not say in Writeup Formatting Tips to obey XML syntax

        Correct. That is because writeups do not need to obey XML syntax. The xml access to a node exists so that other applications can "add value" to PerlMonks. The writeup content is just a single blob within the XML. But you're right, this way (and as far as I know it's the only way) of viewing the real source of another monk's writeup is very far from obvious. I suppose the PerlMonks FAQ ought to say something about this.

        Just put if you're not us go away on the monastery gates.

        No. But maybe something like "If you're not willing to learn how to get along in this community, go away."

        A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

        Isn't closing tags in the correct order part of HTML specifications? And I'm pretty sure that <ul|ol> around lists is in there too. If not maybe we do need to change it.

        Another option (really, i would): Just put if you're not us go away on the monastery gates.

        I assume you think this because of the down votes you have received, but I can promise you that the majority of the down votes are related directly to your tone and the way you seem to continually attack people. One person upsetting you in a reply to one of your nodes is hardly reason to start a thread ranting at and attacking that person, which is how I perceived this entire thread and I would bet many others did as well.

        /me starts welding a new sign for the gates "Can't We All Just Get Along?" Long live CWAJGA!!!


        ___________
        Eric Hodges

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://675409]
Front-paged by JSchmitz
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (17)
As of 2014-10-24 13:57 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (132 votes), past polls