Re: RFC: Things to ask yourself before posting a question on PerlMonks

[taint]

Good Lord!

It appears it's time to review what my understanding of what others will interpret from what/how I post here in the Monks Discussion area.

Really, it all seemed so clear. I'm terribly sorry, some of you don't see it that way -- really

marto: while I have read the links provided. It seemed that the (my) post post spoke for itself. As I felt, did the posting(s) I referenced therein.

Given the responses, and the substance therein. I kindly ask the NodeReaper to reap this post. As it will never reach it's intended destination, or purpose.

The referenced post, was, in my humble opinion, a perfect, concise, example of things one might do well to ask themselves, prior to posting on PerlMonks.

While this was well intentioned. Sadly. It was an "Epic Fail".

Thanks for the feedback

--Chris

Updated: that's NodeReaper, not Reaper.

[jdporter]

I thank you for your contributions. You seem sincere. But:

The referenced post, was, in my humble opinion, a perfect, concise, example of things one might do well to ask themselves, prior to posting on PerlMonks.

The only post you linked to above was how to print only 47..., and it contains precisely nothing of what you claim it does. (Or am I perhaps insane?)

One thing that bothers me is that, when confronted with complaints that you're not being clear, you throw up your hands and walk away, rather than trying to improve your message. Its "intended destination" (audience) is listening. Give us a chance.

[taint]

"The only post you linked to above was how to print only 47..."

Indeed. I'm afraid I had both posts open in different browser tabs, and mistakenly chose the original post ID, not the "re-post" under a different title. It's been corrected. Sorry for the oversite, and thanks for pointing it out.

"One thing that bothers me is that, when confronted with complaints that you're not being clear, you throw up your hands and walk away...""

FALSE
While I do walk away; it is in consideration, and evaluation of what I've just experienced -- evaluation/consideration of what the responses were, evaluation/consideration of how those responses relate to what I'd posted. All in an effort to make my next post, more effective.

Absolutely no dismissal involved.

Thanks for your time, and consideration.

Please vote this post for reapage

--Chris

[marto]

"Indeed. I'm afraid I had both posts open in different browser tabs, and mistakenly chose the original post ID, not the "re-post" under a different title."

Why did you do this? The nodes you claim to have read and understand explain how linking works. If you were simply copying and pasting a node ID the title is automatically rendered. For some reason you choose one node ID and gave it the title of another?

Re: RFC: Things to ask yourself before posting a question on PerlMonks:

"It seemed that the (my) post post spoke for itself. As I felt, did the posting(s) I referenced therein."

Even your edited post has no substane at all to speak of.

I agree with jdporter, any time I've raised an issue with something you've said you've either behaived in a childish manner (lol response posts) or failed to address any of the points raised in a rational manner. Your reponse to feedback here was to mark the thread for reaping.

Update: despite our previous conversations on the topic, you're still not checking your posts, yet another example of a link not going where you think it does.