Re^4: Help! My variables are jumping off a cliff!

[oko1]

in reply to Re^3: Help! My variables are jumping off a cliff!
in thread Help! My variables are jumping off a cliff!

By who's definition? Certainly not Perl's. Or strict's.

BrowserUk... frankly, I'd rather you didn't bother responding to any more of my posts. I've seen quite a few of your responses to others, and have experienced a number of them myself, and you are a small-minded, sniping, intentionally-obtuse troll. You leave a nasty, clinging miasma on everything you touch, and PerlMonks is significantly poorer for your presence, despite your competence at Perl; I have little doubt that you have been the cause of a number of people leaving here, and I have felt like doing so myself on occasion.

Feel free to keep scoring my posts down, you vicious little weasel, but do go away. I won't be responding to anything you write any longer.

[BrowserUk]

I'd rather you didn't bother responding to any more of my posts.

That's cool. I'll try to make a mental note of your handle. (BTW: To my knowledge, I have never down-voted a single one of your posts. Maybe a God could check that for me?)

When logic fails -- distract.

[blakew]

PerlMonks is significantly poorer for your presence

I really, strongly disagree. He took the time to clarify that a statement you made was incorrect. Granted it was done without politeness...but what are you going to do? You came with a question and he answered it. And he did so without calling you names, so I'd note his politeness is exceedingly beyond yours.

[oko1]

Just a note, for future reference: a "politely"-phrased slam is still a slam. The "rule" that requires you to remain polite in response to a toxic puswad like him, just because he uses condescension, denigration, and veiled insults instead of "bad words" is a fiction that I don't subscribe to.

[wrog]

Text has a pretty low bandwidth. You don't get to see facial expressions, body-language cues, or anything else beyond the words actually written. Which means you have to be really careful about projecting stuff onto it that might not actually be there.

I've been corresponding with people by email and newsgroups/forums for 25 years and I still occasionally get caught out by this.

(... which is not to say that the perceived animosity isn't there, just that unless you know the author pretty well in other contexts, you won't always know for sure. Somebody making a factual statement that [you think] makes you look bad may not initially be intending to denigrate you, though if you answer with sufficient venom, they may well become motivated to where they weren't before...)