Considering no one is spamming anything and I can't shill what I wrote myself and claim to have done, your 'input' is /dev/null. I believe the word your looking for is advertise. That would've been acceptable. However, considering that shilling can be a criminal act, I decided to reply. I politely suggest that you use discretion when placing accusations. And on the record, one link to the original source seems appropriate to me. | [reply] |
.... I believe the word your looking for is advertise ....
Whatever.
I politely suggest that you use discretion when placing accusations.
Discretion fully engaged. I stand by the accusation.
one link to the original source seems appropriate to me
If you had copied the entire review in full, I would have been annoyed but not enough to say anything. The fact that you are using your perlmonks post as a teaser to get people to read your blog is over the line and inappropriate.
And considering that this was your first and only post on PerlMonks, I posit that my evaluation of the appropriateness of your post has substantially more merit than yours.
| [reply] |
If you had copied the entire review in full...
After skimming both, I believe the OP did so.
And considering that this was your first and only post on PerlMonks, I posit that my evaluation of the appropriateness of your post has substantially more merit than yours.
That's a silly logical fallacy and quite irrelevant.
The fact that you are using your perlmonks post as a teaser to get people to read your blog is over the line and inappropriate.
The relevant question to me seems to be "Does the post here add any value to the site?" Even if the review elsewhere contains more information, this post here is sufficiently substantial. (In other sections, people demand that posters mention that they've cross-posted elsewhere.)
I think you're taking far too much offense for something not worth arguing.
| [reply] |
