|Perl: the Markov chain saw|
I would certainly say
So the answer to my question is a resounding: No. You would not stand up at YAPC and make the same statement that Tye made.
So why on earth is your first contribution to this site in 2 1/2 months in support of an indefensible statement made by another monk?
He certainly doesn't need you to fight his battles.
But I don't see how you could possibly intend that to bring this thread to a close.
Simple. Because I thought that putting you the spot of having to repeat that indefensible statement would cause you to pause. It did, but not enough apparently.
You continue to argue against a blanket statement.
Yes. Because that is the, obviously patently untrue, statement that was made.
If Tye wished to qualify it, he's had ample opportunity to do so. I may have my suspicions about his reasoning, but it is not for me to put words in his mouth.
Just as I have my suspicions as to why you've suddenly popped up out of nowhere to join the argument.
There -- that ends this thread!
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.