It may be many years since then but i happen to drop by. I am by no means an expert in computer but based on your arguments however i can say legless albeit abrasive in his tone has made his point clear which sadly your ego for your book has impeded you from accepting with a broad mind. To $code or die, there should be nothing sad for someone like legless to have done his research and presented his view openly.
"I have to agree with KM that your problems with the book are "subjective" and that basically it didn't live up to your "expectations". This doesn't make it a bad book. It just isn't a book for you. I just hope that others weren't unduly swayed by reading your post and that they'll make up their own mind."
He had stressed many times his point, that it was his point and that "I (HE) would not reccomned this book to anyone" AS you believe, he has his subjective evaluation and thus it is only right he does not recomment the book himself to anyone. Credibility of the readers is up to the point system raised by the writer. He had not only produced strong examples and detailed explanation to support the basis of his case but to the point of having referred better examples. It is not your place nor KM to silence his opinion to the readers albeit that they do not take it for granted and do their own research.
Again, he may have done in it a sarcastic voice to KM otherwise not much better off reply but he at least had his points and did not strike below the belt by putting someone down in terms of english
"Sorry, but after your first comments on my understanding of the English (speaking of which, I invited you to email *me* with your gripes, which you must have misunderstood as "start a flamefest on Perl Monks") language"
Since when does one dictate what or what not a critic can do. This only shows aversion to the main issue regarding as to why the book is not perfect. The lack of humour regarding emoticons clearly regard how you take his comments negatively rather than constructively to consider it as constructive critiscm. From the very beginning you stressed he gave pointless and unsupported arguments but when he does you resort to dissing him for talking in a juvenile method. Is his matter of speech or the book in concern here? Its a dirty trick to get back at somebody in such a uncouth eye for an eye manner without logical reasoning when you cant discuss it out knowledgeably. Almost akin to a child striking back at a monitor for setting him in detention.
"I do agree with $code_or_die that this should be taken offline. Feel free to email me if you can give constructive comments in a non-juvenile fashion. Some may be valid, and I would listen to them, but I can't concern myself with you if this is how you do it."
If it should be taken offline, it shouldn have been initiated with insults from your side from the very beginning. Most importantly, if you were not going to dignify his research and carefully planned explanation, where else does he turn to. You were never intending to concern yourself beyong the mortal insult of an emoticon and you have indeed exhibited "cherry picking" behaviour by not answering him in a knowledgeable way as one who would want to improve on his book. Sure enough writing a book is a pride and takes lot of efforts as such as how iv written my own math book after 3 years of compiling notes and questions and still going on but if you were sincerely in the pursuit of knowledge, spiting a person rather than answering his point is so below you. It may be an ant, but even the ancients relied on them for water in hot weathers; It may be an old horse, but they similarly use them to navigate the way home. Lastly it may be an abrasive but factually informed man, but its stupid to ignore him simply because you cant accept his points presented in a way you find offensive when you yourself have not been the soul of courtesy. Simply because another individual as $code_or_die agree with you WITHOUT LOGICAL EXPLANATION OR RESEARCH LAID OUT, i hardly find it something to crow about and diss someone who took the effort to read up your book and constructively critiscise it. If you ever intend to do things for the welfare of this forum, don try to silence a person presenting a true view, rather face it like a man with knowledge than sophistry and spite.
It may seem rather busybody of me, but i jus happen to drop by and i just find the injustice of so many years which you probably may not read intolerable and had to get it out of my system. Let the only sorry for this post be the dark attempt of man to avert his eyes from what he fears.
Thank you,
Kevin
-
Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
-
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big>
<blockquote> <br /> <dd>
<dl> <dt> <em> <font>
<h1> <h2> <h3> <h4>
<h5> <h6> <hr /> <i>
<li> <nbsp> <ol> <p>
<small> <strike> <strong>
<sub> <sup> <table>
<td> <th> <tr> <tt>
<u> <ul>
-
Snippets of code should be wrapped in
<code> tags not
<pre> tags. In fact, <pre>
tags should generally be avoided. If they must
be used, extreme care should be
taken to ensure that their contents do not
have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent
horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor
intervention).
-
Want more info? How to link
or How to display code and escape characters
are good places to start.
|
