|Perl: the Markov chain saw|
You do not "have a sworn enemy", at least not in me. There is nothing systematic about my voting on your posts. I vote on the content of your posts, not their author. If they are in a thread I am interested in, I read them.
Remember, I can only downvote any post once. You only need impress one other person sufficiently that they upvote you, and you are at net 0, with my expression of opinion totally negated.
Some stats: Of your 2155 posts, I have voted on just over 10% at 245. Of those 24 have been upvotes and 221, downvotes.
I've generally made it my practice to reply to posts I downvote, in order to explain why I downvoted it, but I long since gave up with you. Doing so never seems to stop you from trotting out the same vague, condescending, soapbox wisdoms -- often barely, if at all, related to the question at hand -- even on subjects that it is perfectly obvious -- and repeatedly demonstrated -- that you do not have a clue.
Like a politician. you'll often court popularity, by talking up popular subjects -- eg. "It should of course go without saying that there are numerous complete frameworks within CPAN for implementing scenarios such as this one." without actually identifying which modules you are alluding to.
And you never post actual solutions. (Ie. code.).
Those posts I've downvoted have earned that downvote by dint of their content; not because of their authorship.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.