note eyepopslikeamosquito You seem convinced that [BrowserUk] is your "sworn enemy", even going so far as to [id://940762|accuse him of using sock-puppet accounts] to downvote your nodes. I believe you are wrong on both counts. To be sure, [BrowserUk] calls you out severely when he believes you are wrong. Yet if you examine his posting history, you will notice that you have not been singled out in that regard. And I strongly doubt that he -- or any other highly ranked monk -- would stoop to using sock puppets, a serious crime in the virtual state that is Perl Monks. For the record, here is a selection of [BrowserUk]'s harsher quotes in response to your posts: <ul> <li> [id://898733]: "Which makes this post, like 90% of those you make, pointless, platitudinous, fatuous froth. So desperate are you to say something, you'll say anything, no matter how irrelevant or wrong." <li> [id://898752]: "Just more fatuous garbage." <li> [id://898979]: "Nothing you have said above is even vaguely relevant to the OPs question. You get more fatuous by the day." <li> [id://906297]: "Utter garbage!" <li> [id://910940]: "When will you get it through your thick skull that sorting is not linear." <li> [id://912239]: "No, you moron. Sorting is, at best, O(N log N)." <li> [id://921934]: "Do you actually read the posts you reply to, or just divine their content through your lower lumbar regions? ... So will you please, please, please stop trotting out your "virtual memory is disk" missive at every inopportune moment. Read what you are responding to. (Follow your own advice: read it twice, and then once more). Think about it for a while. AND THEN SHUT THE F*** UP. Because it is getting boring trying to keep correcting you over and over and over." <li> [id://926022]: "Care to explain by what magic of "old bullshitter" logic you arrived at the conclusion that the OP was constructing self-referential structures?" <li> [id://926195]: "Thank you for explaining that to me. Except you're wrong! ... you aren't just slightly off, but absolutely diametrically wrong on all counts ... So why post? Why do you -- who evidently know little of the subject, and understand even less of the little you have some inkling of -- feel the need to demonstrate to me -- I think fair to say, one of the more knowledgeable monks with regard to threading -- just how useless your home-spun wisdom fairy stories on this subject, as with so many others, really are? ... What is the point of your posting this garbage?" <li> [id://940659]: "Why do you keep blurting out these pointless, useless, whole wrong replies to questions on subjects you obviously have no practical knowledge whatsoever?" <li> [id://940763]: "at least one other person recognises your crap for what it is" <li> [id://949701]: "This is another of these fatuous "wisdoms" you are so ready to trot out." <li> [id://950156]: "Perhaps if you relied less on your apparently limited imagination and tried using the stuff you feel obliged to talk about, you might talk less crap." <li> [id://954262]: "Why do you keep spouting the same, groundless, unfounded, garbage? ... It is beginning to feel like Groundhog Day around here ... Doing (saying) the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome, is either first sign of madness or senility." <li> [id://955291]: "Sorry, but it is blindingly obvious that you have no idea what is meant by asynchronous IO ... I suggest you look it up -- you know, do a little research, ensure that you know what it is you're pontificating about -- before you torture any more incorrect analogies to death." <li> [id://955371]: "... dress them together with ``lot's'' "of" 'different' quotes and stylistic devices and some flowery analogies to fool the unknowing into a few up-votes, but it stands out like a sore thumb that there is no real understanding behind your words. ... You Sir, are a wannabe. But you're either too old, or too lazy or too recalcitrant to actually to do any research -- much less actually write any programs -- and get a real understanding of that about which you pontificate. You're not even a has-been. More, a never-will-be." <li> [id://987425]: "Do you never actually read the question? ... Please stop responding to my questions. Your responses are never useful to me and simply annoy me." <li> [id://987446]: "Literally nothing you said above relates in any way to the question I asked. I'm not interested in your extremely dubious "expertise". I'm not interested in your opinion. So please. Just stop." <li> [id://990087]: "And I suspect that, once again, you haven't a clue what you are talking about." ... "In a nutshell, your "suspicions" are so out of touch with reality, and so founded upon little more than supposition, that they are valueless." <li> [id://990165]: "When sundial "contributes" his 'stop energy' (skip directly to 33:24) there is no knowledge, no experience, nothing but the negative energy of his groundless suppositions." <li> [id://991917]: "You who has polluted this place with endless reams of your recycled, homespun, out-of-the-ark, ribald tosh." <li> [id://994350]: "Sorry, but you obviously don't understand the technicalities of the example." <li> [id://995803]: "So do just stop regurgitating your useless, pointless, irrelevant, and gratuitously incorrect home-spun wisdoms." <li> [id://995846]: "Look you idiot. You are talking crap. SO DO SHUT THE F*** UP!" <li> [id://999808]: "More of your patented, utter ribald tosh..." <li> [id://1014738]: "I'm not sure that standing on one leg whilst drinking blood from a freshly decapitated chicken would help; so I don't mention it ... your <strike>instincts</strike> prejudiced guessing is wrong! ... it will show your 'advice' to be nothing more than groundless guessing" <li> [id://1018633]: "That statement is garbage ... Why do you insist of posting on subjects that you obviously have no useful knowledge of? Could it be that you know that even your garbage replies will often garner you a few upvotes?" <li> [id://1018677]: "You make statements -- that you must just pluck out of your own imagination -- that simply don't make sense ... You are helping no one with answers that are this far off base." <li> [id://1018974]: "on the strength of the utter guff you repeatedly spew into any and every thread on threading; I seriously doubt that you have ever written a threaded program in your life. To date, you have yet to post a single code solution, on any subject, anywhere on this forum. You are a fantasist. Nothing more nor less." <li> [id://1020312]: "What garbage you speak ... You are just making it up as you go along. As per normal. Pathetic!" <li> [id://1020885]: "Yet more crap!" <li> [id://1022839]: "Pure, unadulterated garbage." <li> [id://1022893]: "Even the answer you gave -- which was to a completely different question -- was wrong in at least four ways! ... You are helping no one by responding with such utter garbage in threads on subjects it is patently and painfully obvious you haven't got the first clue what you are talking about." <li> [id://1023056]: "After all my carefully constructed, reasoned arguments about the technical merits of your posts; all you are worried about is the downvotes. And a liar to boot." <li> [id://1030439]: "You utter buffoon." <li> [id://1030457]: "You get no respect from me because you do not deserve any whilst you continue to post garbage like this." <li> [id://1030756]: "Your lack of understanding -- not just of threading, but Perl, and even programming, in general -- makes it all more frustrating and annoying that you once again have started to dole out "advice" on subjects you simply know nothing useful about." <li> [id://1037081]: "Prove it by posting the code. You won't (because you can't). Talk is cheap (and in your case invariably wrong!)." <li> [id://1037863]: "Show me that this isn't just another case of a keyword triggering one of your 6 remaining synapses to fire, and cause you to trot out the associated, autonomic "advice"." <li> [id://1038064]: "...stop regurgitating pointless boilerplate, in response to questions to which it barely relates, if at all ... As for "fellow Monks": a) Drop the 's'; b) you're no fellow of mine" <li> [id://1038072]: "Wasn't me. I'm not the only one who's seen through your bs." <li> [id://1038187]: "It is the "information content" of your posts that is demonstrably -- and oft-demonstrated -- as wrong -- often 180° so -- that is the source of your downvotes and personal attacks." </ul> And here is a selection of your gentler quotes in response to [BrowserUk]'s posts: <ul> <li> [id://879458]: "It is easy to know from hearing you "speak" that you have been around this block many times: yours is the voice of well-seasoned experience." <li> [id://899762]: "what BrowserUK said here is, in my opinion, excellent wisdom, well thought-out and presented" <li> [id://914367]: "An excellent suggestion. Fav'd." <li> [id://926190]: "Good advice. (Fav'd.)" <li> [id://933770]: "as BrowserUK wisely suggests" <li> [id://947172]: "Agreeing fully with BrowserUK's previous comments on this (I think...)" <li> [id://949692]: "<tt>++</tt>. Very true." <li> [id://953488]: "such ideas having already been given to you, and in great detail by experts such as BrowserUK" <li> [id://954233]: "Quite obviously, BrowserUK very routinely processes gigantic datasets during the course of his work day. He is quite the expert on those (what are to many of us...) edge cases. Upvoted." <li> [id://955219]: "(up-voted) ... whereas, if I may presume to impose upon your very apt analogy..." <li> [id://973845]: "Such a thorough and well-reasoned explanation certainly should convince anyone. Upvoted." <li> [id://978785]: "Apart from the performance/capacity "edge cases" that I openly acknowledge BrowserUK (in particular) deals with every day" <li> [id://985452]: "I say this in all seriousness, BrowserUK could whip one up in about three minutes" <li> [id://986270]: "BrowserUK's algorithm is of course more efficient, and he has the RAM." <li> [id://987177]: "BrowserUK, I specifically acknowledge that your work is an exception to that statement, and very impressive work it certainly is." <li> [id://987444]: "You have "long skills" in certain pursuits, which I have quickly learned to respect and not to question" <li> [id://992202]: "with the notable exception of the very valid edge-cases that my esteemed colleague, BrowserUK, routinely and legitimately encounters in his daily work" <li> [id://994968]: "Echoing BrowserUK’s comments, and after up-voting his post, ..." <li> [id://994664]: "BrowserUK’s subsequent recommendation to use temporary tables and a join-query, below, is in my view unquestionably the best approach" <li> [id://995845]: "As you say in the (upvoted) earlier comment, this is a poorly thought-out program from the start." <li> [id://995847]: "I will trouble you henceforth to remember that very simple rule of human etiquette." <li> [id://996684]: "As a slight parenthetical comment to BrowserUK’s excellent (and heavily up-voted) advice..." <li> [id://1000336]: "If BrowserUK said it, yes, he is sure. And sure to be right. Seriously." <li> [id://1004263]: "Hello? Esteemed Monk, are you, like, okay?? I’m being utterly serious, and daresay not alone. Check in, please..." <li> [id://1006783]: "Agree with BrowserUK ..." <li> [id://1011354]: "(And in making that comment, I consciously and respectfully intend to steer the middle-ground against acknowledged valid ... BrowserUK ... edge-case exceptions ...)" <li> [id://1011659]: "I am certain that this thread will attract the attention of BrowserUK, who is well-known about these parts to be especially expert in high-performance algorithms in high-volume situations. I especially look forward to his insights on this subject." <li> [id://1020944]: "sorry, “troll-UK,” but I do have “experience” here" <li> [id://1022824]: "Excellent comments, BrowserUK. Very informative." <li> [id://1023017]: "My response to you has been to commend your responses and to up-vote a great many of them. I have never down-voted a single one" <li> [id://1025322]: "the high-performance applications frequently written by BrowserUK" <li> [id://1027604]: "Echoing BrowserUK..." <li> [id://1030114]: "As BrowserUK says (in so many words), I would not disabuse the Perl-5 language..." <li> [id://1030378]: "as BrowserUK's elegant code example does by blocking the sender while the queue is too-large. (I really do think that you should put this little jewel into CPAN anyway, even if it uses an undocumented feature.)" <li> [id://1037073]: "And, meaning to take absolutely no thunder away from this most-excellent example ... It’s exactly the concept that BrowserUK demonstrates here ... Great post. Thanks." <li> [id://1038058]: "BrowserUK, didn’t you “forget” to log in?" </ul> While admiring your Wile-E-Coyote-like bouncing back after being flattened, I find your sycophantic dishing out of praise to [BrowserUk] a bit creepy, especially the superfluous "Upvoted" and "Fav'd" comments. Update: I noticed some recent nodes written with the same distinctive, arbitrary, gratuitous, puerile, pretentious and annoying [sundialsvc4]-style typography, stylistic devices and flowery analogies   (Just askin’) (“Schweet!”)   (“Priceless™ ...”) and yet were posted anonymously: <ul> <li> [id://978758] <li> [id://978763] <li> [id://992221] </ul> Updated since the original node was written with more recent examples from the long-running and fascinating BrowserUk-sundialsvc4 "relationship". :) 973576 973576