note Wassercrats <blockquote>Your arrogance is stifling...For instance you posted: Bonus Critique Perl's zero-based numbering scheme The numbering of array indexes and other things in Perl start at 0. This is dumb.</blockquote> That's the tone Perl::Improved was meant to have. I said I'll be critiquing EVERY function. Do you really think I could find significant problems with EVERY function and that I could give a good enough argument to support fixing all of them? I don't even know what some (maybe most) of the functions do! <blockquote>Then let's take a look at the Let's Bash O'Reilly node that won you worst node of the year honors. I'm not talking about the original node, specifically, but how many Re: nodes did you write after it? So many that I stopped counting...</blockquote> I wrote only 11 Re: nodes out of the 78, and people have said I explained myself better in them and only the top post gave them problems, but I'm not surprised about how you feel because I know plenty of people downvoted the Re: posts too. I'm really trying to give people the benefit of the doubt by implying that people really think I make a bad argument or that I'm rude when they downvote me. I could relate to how difficult being optimistic could be. 386089 386340