Re^5: Suggested improvement to the 'Permission Denied' page

[kcott]

"I, for one, “struggle with disbelief” when confronted by the realization that PerlMonks does, indeed, appear to have three different incarnations: .org, .com, .net."

This sounded like complete garbage when I first read it: I was certain you'd been given this information already. In fact, I was reasonably certain that you'd been given this information multiple times as you seem to engage in much the same rant whenever this general topic crops up in a thread.

A quick search of Perl Monks Discussion, for threads started by you, found this one which has this direct reply containing, in the first line:

"... of the six permutations of the root URI ({www,}.perlmonks.{com,org,net}), ..."

What you've posted here is clearly just another of your rants. I will be downvoting your node for this reason.

"In every other web-site that I have ever used or known-about, ... [rant continues] ..."

Perhaps you could use those websites instead.

[jdporter]

He didn't say he'd never heard it before; he said he still has trouble believing it.

[kcott]

"He didn't say he'd never heard it before; ..."

Nor did he say that he had.

"... he said he still has trouble believing it." [my emphasis]

At the time of this reply to your post, it does not say that.

At the time of replying to his post, it did not say that.

I actually went to some effort to ensure that something like that was not implied before replying to him:

• "I, for one, “struggle with disbelief” ..." is present tense — it doesn't say "... have struggled with disbelief and continue to do so ..." or "... am still struggling with disbelief ...".
• "... PerlMonks does, indeed, appear to have ..." is also present tense — it doesn't say "... still appears to have ...". Furthermore, that actually suggests a current and immediate reaction.

So, the grammar and general tone all convey the impression that this is all new to him; however, what clearly identifies his intention of suggesting this is something he's never come across, in all the time that he's spent on this site, is this:

"Here, much to my six-years-old surprise, this does not appear to be the case."

If you believe his post does somehow imply what you suggest, then we'll have to agree to differ as I see no such implication.

While I suspect it's unlikely, if you think his post has changed, perhaps consider it with: "Edit: restore original content and show updates." and I will happily update my node accordingly.

[jdporter]

I'm not going to argue about this. I'm sorry you went to so much trouble. But I firmly believe you are completely mistaken.