Re^3: RFC: Things to ask yourself before posting a question on PerlMonks

[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.

[taint]

"For some reason you choose one node ID and gave it the title of another?"

Sorry, I don't follow you here.

" 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."

You're entitled to your opinion. But don't see where that applies to this post.

"Your reponse to feedback here was to mark the thread for reaping."

Yep, and for good reason. The overall consensus was that it had little, or no value.
Pretty good reason to reap it, if you ask me.

"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."

Oh. I checked it, all right. But, as I noted, I transversed the two titles in my mind, and consequently, put the wrong node ID in the post.
I don't suppose you've ever made a mistake. Not even more than once, have you. Forget the fact that the post from you I am responding to here, is full of spelling errors, and missing characters.

Frankly, I think you're dogging the issue, and me.

--Chris