neshura: I understand why you would not necessarily approve of the post I made in response to princepawn's post. But I did not do that to attack him. I did that to question his behavior. Personally, I have sent messages to princepawn apologizing for "jumping the gun" in judgment. I have also apologized for my role in this entire affair. I'm not happy that I added fuel to the fire. But let's step back and see how princepawn views this:
in reply to Re: A Judas Among Us?
in thread Chapter 714: The Long Chapter
the very first part of the attack I launched on the discrepancy between ...
He made the above comment in this post. Even princepawn seems to view some of his own comments as "attacks."
He has cried wolf many times. He didn't do this deliberately, but at times he failed to read the documentation and other times the code he used to illustrate a point had bugs. The point that many tried to impress upon him was that he should be more rigorous in his analysis of what he's doing.
The question, then, is what we view as acceptable behavior in the monestary. If someone attacks another monk, that's wrong. Personally, I can see how my own comments have tread close enough to that line that I have erred. However, while I am not happy with how I chose to word my posts, I stand by my intentions. If someone wants to constantly criticize the Perl language and say how bad it is, I don't feel that Perlmonks is an appropriate forum for that, particularly if that someone keeps getting their facts wrong. I realize that you may disagree with me over that and that's okay. Discussions like this are good.
Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.