Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

RE: RE: RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research

by jepri (Parson)
on Nov 14, 2000 at 22:13 UTC ( #41607=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RE: RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
in thread No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research

You said everything but that they are rules. You ask three times for an agreement, then you suggest that these "guidlines" actually become (quote)standards(unquote).

What's more you know damn well that if you point things in a bulleted list a whole bunch of people will refer to them as the rules.

I just one one place that anymonk can point to and say "Last time logging the chatterbox came up everybody decided X".

That's exactly what I'm worried about.

This is a good thread to read as well:

24Hr log of chatterbox

Update: Instead of a "guidelines" with glib comments why don't you make a significant threads list. That way people can read the threads for themselves and see the community in action. You've decided that a guidelines list is the way to go and you're determined to ram it through. I made a perfectly good suggestion that we refer people to threads rather than giving them a list of rules -sorry- guidelines to agree while they are here.

Update II: I guess I'm being unreasonable expecting people to read whole threads. But I'll put any others I find here just in case.

____________________
Jeremy
Hack the planet with Physics++


Comment on RE: RE: RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
RE: RE: RE: RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
by jptxs (Curate) on Nov 14, 2000 at 22:29 UTC

    : ) jepri. Pal. Brother. The whole reason I'm starting this thread is to try and stop the animosity. And I bear none toward you. You think they look like rules, fine. I conceed there is that interpretation. My question to you, to everymonk, is do these three points capture what has been said in all the prvious threads pretty well. I have read all the threads. I have read most of them several times. I have been agonizing over this whole thing. I just want it to end at this point. I do not know why you are worried about setting some sort of standard. If you read through many of the posts that you are pointing out to me, many of them are saying we should come up with one. In fact, one of the threads asks for a resolution in the title! : ) Please. Put aside the rule fear. Look at the three points. Think about what they are saying. Are what they are saying close to the general consensus that was reached in the other discussions. I think so. You even ask if I'm afraid people won't come to the same conclusion - sarcasm, no doubt, pointing out that they would and reasonably should.

    <myExperience> $mostLanguages = 'Designed for engineers by engineers.'; $perl = 'Designed for people who speak by a linguist.'; </myExperience>

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://41607]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-09-16 02:38 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite cookbook is:










    Results (155 votes), past polls