Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Wassercrats::Improved, Part Deaux

by Paulster2 (Priest)
on Aug 27, 2004 at 12:34 UTC ( #386340=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 0

You know Wassercrats, I really am trying to give you the benifit of the doubt on this why do people always down vote my nodes (posts) thing, but you leave me very little wiggle room. Your arrogance is stifling! As I tried to point out to you in previous CB instances (and others have, also) it's not your ideas or your knowledge of perl that gets you down voted, it's all of the garbage and bagage that comes along with it. 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.


You may be correct in this assumption, but give us something to work with, here. While it may be obvious to you what you mean, it means nothing to the rest of us. Explain your argument why This is dumb with out all of the rhetoric that usually comes with your posts, you might actually get someone to agree or at least respond to you in a civil fasion. (As a side counter point to your non-argument above: While starting the numbering at 0 may be dumb to you, I guess you're suggesting that all computers/code external of perl should be fixed so they don't use zero for a base? WOW, does this smell of Y2K?)

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, most of them are very negative in tone, which will more than likely win you a -- for your efforts. Quit leaving yourself open for such abuse, unless of course you like it. (I hope you know that a psychology student could write a thesis on you and gain a doctorate! .oO(Hey, maybe that's his goal?))

I leave your posts/nodes and remarks to one of several (maybe multiple) things:

1) You are young and you know it all.
2) You are using Wassercrats as a pseudonym, and are using it to express things without getting -- on your other node.
3) You want to be a martyr.

I'm sure that there are a plethora of things that I could list here, but this is what I came up with off of the top of my head.

So bottom line to what I am trying to tell you: 1) Explain yourself without rhetoric, 2) Be constructive, not destructive, 3) When you've made your point (at least in your eyes), leave it alone. You don't have to retort to every node that posts.

I tell you one thing though, you sure know how to get this site fired up.

Paulster2

PS: I tried to color the rat, but it left marker on the screen. I'm still trying to clean it off.

You're so sly, but so am I. - Quote from the movie Manhunter.


Comment on Wassercrats::Improved, Part Deaux
Re: Wassercrats::Improved, Part Deaux
by Wassercrats on Aug 27, 2004 at 16:05 UTC
    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.

    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!

    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...

    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.

      If you can't come up with a good argument, then don't critique it.

      "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

        I was kind of amused by the choice of the word "critique", which doesn't actually mean only negative comments, though it seems to be clear that that's how he meant it. Would it make you happier if he reported "drawbacks" or "caveats"?
      Howdy!

      That's not a critique. It's a drive-by snark. A useful critique will actually point out what is right/wrong, ideally with reasoned argument and an understanding of the principles readily apparent.

      All you do is say "this is dumb". That's dumb. Worse than that, its lazy and arrogant. Make that slothful. You don't give the interested reader any information on which to assess your complaint. You lay it out like a cow-pattie in a field. At least the cow-pattie is nascent fertilizer.

      When you actually write a critique, let us know.

      yours,
      Michael

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://386340]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (12)
As of 2014-07-30 19:31 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (240 votes), past polls