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

Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature

by princepawn (Parson)
on Jan 06, 2004 at 11:32 UTC ( #319078=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by Corion (Patriarch) on Jan 06, 2004 at 11:42 UTC

    even though you've been a member of Perlmonks for a long time, you still do not seem to read replies to your posts, nor do you seem to know how the reaping of nodes goes.

    mrpilot considered your node for deletion, and at least three other people also voted "delete" on your node, with noone else voting "keep". Thus your node was reaped.

    As a reply to your node, I already mentioned that this is a personal matter between you and PodMaster and that it should be best handled outside of the monastery or outside of the public side of the monastery.

    There was some short discussion on what "obscene" is supposed to mean, and no dissenting opinion was voiced to that PodMasters signature is not obscene.

    Other knowledgeable monks also already showed you many good ways how to hide the signature from your view, so that you might be less offended by it.

    Of course I let my personal opinions on this matter influence - no drive - me, because I do not share your view that it is necessary to force any change in this situation.

    Another monk mentioned in the CB that maybe your last post was a failed attempt to promote your module, and while I thought it a good joke the last time, I find your repeated non-sequitur mention of your module annoying (except if it were part of your signature, which it isn't).

    perl -MHTTP::Daemon -MHTTP::Response -MLWP::Simple -e ' ; # The $d = new HTTP::Daemon and fork and getprint $d->url and exit;#spider ($c = $d->accept())->get_request(); $c->send_response( new #in the HTTP::Response(200,$_,$_,qq(Just another Perl hacker\n))); ' # web
      As a reply to your node, I already mentioned that this is a personal matter between you and PodMaster and that it should be best handled outside of the monastery or outside of the public side of the monastery.
      I disagree. Let me translate princepawn's question for you: "Is this kind of foul language acceptable for a monk's signature? Any monk's?". It is actually unrelated to PodMaster's person, nor limited to this one, particular, signature. It is about a general rule for signatures.

      I won't say anything about the same kind of language in the middle of a post. A signature is something different, as it's repeated over and over again, and totally unrelated to the thread it is in. Therefore, maybe some stricter rules should be applied.

      If I didn't know Dominus is a very polite guy in general otherwise, I'd find this kind of exclamation more objectionable.

        This comes closest to my thinking on the subject...

        PerlMonks has procedures for dealing with "naughty words" in node contents and they work pretty well, mostly using peer pressure to keep the quantity of such relatively low, so that they don't appear to be much of a problem for most people (and certainly a great many monks would seem to have little problem with a much higher frequency).

        My major concern was a few mis-guided MIS/IT departments having some kind of naughty word counter and some monk getting noticed for surfing PerlMonks from work. PerlMonks should be a fairly safe place to visit from work, even if your MIS/IT department has gone off the deep end.

        But it appears that this may not be a valid concern, at least as far as the s-word is concerned, since I haven't seen any complaints over the past year due to PodMaster's signature.

        In any case, the only way PodMaster's signature would be changed would be through peer pressure, and princepawn has made it certain that such will never happen.

        I'd rather not have PerlMonks language subset degrade into "locker room" range. And princepawn's actions make me fear that some will increase their use of "naughty words" in reaction.

        Please, let's try to keep PerlMonks somewhat close to "professional" in tone most of the time.

                        - tye
      mrpilot considered your node for deletion, and at least three other people also voted "delete" on your node, with noone else voting "keep". Thus your node was reaped.
      I believe the monk who considers the node is the one cited, even if they voted keep or edit (or didn't vote at all). The actual monk who performs the deletion is not publicly revealed.

      Update: Corion informs me that the deletion is automatic. I'd assumed that since edits would have to be manual, deletetion would be also.

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 06, 2004 at 13:30 UTC
    unacceptably offensive on two grounds

    Mind if I have an attempt at analysing that

    1. It uses the word "shit".
        Dictionary definition:
        1. Excrement.
        2. The act or an instance of defecating.
        3. shits Diarrhea. Used with the.
          1. Something considered disgusting, of poor quality, foolish, or otherwise totally unacceptable.
          2. A mean or contemptible person.
        4. A narcotic or intoxicant, such as marijuana or heroin.
        5. Things; items.
        6. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
        7. Insolent talk or behaviour.
        8. Trouble or difficulty.
        9. A small or worthless amount: He doesn't know shit

        If the meaning intended was the 1. above, then the subject matter is vulgar, but hardly offensive.

        There is a saying over here. "Even the Queen's shit (probably) stinks".

        Excrement may be unpleasant, but how something that every human being in history has had no option but to deal with on a daily basis can ever be considered "offensive" quite boggles my mind.

        However, the literal use of the word excrement is pretty obviously not the intended meaning here. The most likely meaning is 5. "Things; items".

        Again, this usage may be considered vulgar, but "things" are offensive?

        Sounds like a Carry on... style caricature of Victorian prudishness to me.

      • It makes a negative and insensitive reference to the mentally handicapped (retardo).

        The vernacular, "retardo" presumable derives from the word "retard".

        re·tard2 P Pronunciation Key (rtärd)

        n. Offensive Slang

        1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
        2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.

        The dictionary definition agrees that retard can be offensive. However, there are two possibilities given. The first is genuinely offensive. To disparage a person for something entirely beyond their control, is offensive.

        To the individual concerned, and to the wider group of similarly afflicted people. But it seems likely, the usage in question is the second.

        The person on the receiving end of the quip is being accused of acting like they were retarded, when they in fact aren't. The term is not used disparagingly of the mentally handicapped, only comparatively.

        If I say you are taller than Michael Jordan, am I disparaging Michel Jordan in a height-ist slur? Or simply comparing you to a known standard?

        In this case, the use of "retardo" may be offensive to the target of the quip, but so would comparing them to a mentally handicapped person. Should we be offended for that person?

        The lack of vulgarity doesn't remove the offensiveness to the target person. And the comparison does denigrate the mentally handicapped. The use of a group reference in a comparison can be offensive.

        Example: Saying to someone: "You're as stuck up as the English".

        This can be deemed offensive as it implies that all English people are stuck up.

        But saying: "You're like the English"; is not, without some further context.

        In this context, saying: "You're like a mentally handicapped person"; would be tantamount to being offensive, because it categorises all mentally handicapped people as being at some, implicitly low level, which they clearly aren't.

        But saying that someone is acting as if they were mentally handicapped, isn't offensive to the group, only the individual. Should we be offended for that person?

        Personally, I think not. We all have our moments of acting below our ability or without proper effort with the result we do less, or achieve less than might be reasonable expected.

        Is it offensive to have this pointed out to us?

    So then you get the questions:

    • Is there a difference between the vulgar and the offensive?
    • Should the group (society) protect (censor) the individual against either?

      If the answer to this second question is "yes"; how does either the individual or the group benefit from such censorship?

    Examine what is said, not who speaks.
    "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
    "Think for yourself!" - Abigail

      The person on the receiving end of the quip is being accused of acting like they were retarded, when they in fact aren't. The term is not used disparagingly of the mentally handicapped, only comparatively.
      "retarded" is disparaging, not descriptive. IIRC, the term "mentally retarded" (origin of retard/retarded/retardo) was originally intended to apply to certain learning disabilities. It became regarded as disparaging because the term wasn't actually descriptive of this, and was replaced by the more descriptive "developmentally disabled". Neither term is equivalent to "mentally handicapped".
      Is there a difference between the vulgar and the offensive
      I think part of being vulgar is being offensive in some contexts.
        "retarded" is disparaging, not descriptive. IIRC, the term "mentally retarded" (origin of retard/retarded/retardo) was originally intended to apply to certain learning disabilities.

        Well, actually "retarded" means simply "slowed down", and no, I don't have to quote a dictionary on that, as any good dictionary ought to list that as definition number 1, and any dictionary which does not list that as definition number 1 is a bad dictionary.

        Anyway, the reason why the term "mentally retarded" has been applied to that group of people which we now call "developmentally disabled", or various other now-PC terms is pretty straight forward. Think "mentally slowed down" or "mentally slow". I'm not saying it is particularly nice, but it is, in fact, descriptive. At the very least it seems descriptive to anyone who does not have a particularly good physiological notion of what makes someone "developmentally disabled".

        Over time, it certainly has developed a negative conotation. This has derived not so much from meaning or from etimology, but from use. In general, it seems that any term used to collectively describe a group of people, particularly if that group of people is considered to be disinfranchised or thought low of in some manner, begins to develop such a negative connotation.

        Lastly, I'd agree that, in general, calling someone a "reatard" or "retardo" is offensive to me... but I don't want this guy to take his sig down. There's something called "context," you know... he's a) obviously quoting someone else, and b) making a funny joke, which is a little bit offsetting.

        Most importantly, I don't want to censor anyone... to be honest I've read a bunch of this guy's posts and never once noticed his sig. Big deal. I'm sure there's a funny story behind some obnoxious friend of PodMaster's saying this to some obnoxious idiot. Life goes on. Deal.

        ------------ :Wq Not an editor command: Wq
Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by PodMaster (Abbot) on Jan 06, 2004 at 12:03 UTC
    I like my signature :) and I've had that particular line in it for well over a year (took you long enough to notice).

    This has been raised before

    Filtering "profanities" is going to be tough. Filtering "profanities" from html is going to be tough on the server.

    If you start filtering out US profanities, you're gonna have to start filtering out *insert language here* profanities ....

    BTW, I'm completely against the idea dag nabbit ... oogly-googly!

    MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
    I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
    ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

      I like PodMaster's sig. It's refreshingly honest. As a matter of fact, when I find myself making some dumb newbie error, that's the first phrase that pops into my head.

      It's destined for "common usage"; :-)

      Also, I've never met MJD, although I've heard alot about him, and "I like him already", because of that quote.

      > BTW, I'm completely against the idea dag nabbit ... oogly-googly!

      The question to the above answer is: How does it sound when Ned Flenders is cursing?

      Back to reality: I know MJD, I talked to him and I sat in more than one of his OSCON sessions. MJD is one of the most kind person I ever met, and he even puts people on the spot for putting themselves or others down.

      Best example: me! In one of the sessions with MJD, I asked a question which was already answered on the screen, but I didn't notice that because I didn't grok the answer yet. Once I noticed that I said "'Doh", to which MJD replied something along the lines of: Don't do that, don't put yourself down. It's part of the learning process and has nothing to do with being stupid.

      So: Is profantiy bad? I would say that depends. I mostly don't use it in writting, but when I get into one of my rants about life, the universe and the rest... I am cursing up a hurricane, yet most people around me survived for the better of it.


Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by castaway (Parson) on Jan 06, 2004 at 12:13 UTC
    To address some of your points: If personal opinions are not supposed to be used for judgement of whether nodes should remain in the monastery or not, then what are we supposed to use? Thanks for saying that everyone's opinion here is flawed, that'll get you a lot of admirers, I dont think..

    If you hadnt noticed, this is a place where a real democracy is in place, anyone who has stuck around long enough (level 5) is allowed to vote on a matter, the ones that matter being whoever happens to be around at the time, just a couple of keep votes, and it would have stayed..

    I thought it was more worth completely ignoring, and as others have mentioned, it looked more like a promotion of your module, than a discussion topic. If you had left off that line, there might have been something to discuss.

    But, back to the topic: Aeh, which topic anyway, what exactly is this about? If you're not attempting to get people to remove offensive bits of their signatures, then what do you want? There is in fact, nothing to discuss.

    If you dont like the sig, hide it, and get on. If you'd like to help others do so, /msg sitedocclan with an amendment to the appropriate help page, adding a text showing people how to do it, problem solved. If you're suggesting that the Monastery itself use your module, then say something like 'I think we could add a "Dont show offensive words" button in the settings, and use this module to filter them.' - That would have been constructive.

    As it is, I have no idea what its about, but for the record, the signature doesn't bother me.


Two Rules for Online Bliss
by Wally Hartshorn (Hermit) on Jan 06, 2004 at 22:43 UTC

    Once upon a time, in my pre-Internet BBS days, we had only two rules:

    1. Do not be overly annoying.
    2. Do not be too easily annoyed.

    I'd say at least one of these applies here.

    Wally Hartshorn

    (Plug: Visit JavaJunkies, PerlMonks for Java)

      I was going to post that myself. I've got it down as a quote from Ken Kaplan, Fidonet pioneer. It was on the log in screen for the old telechat server at HotWired. Extra ++ :-)

      "Ex libris un peut de tout"
        And when I did I found this other little gem there as well: blockquote>"Judge not, lest ye be judged!" Which I thought was rather appropriate. Later yesterday I was having some struggles with a module and I looked for alternatives. One is maintained by princepawn, the other is not. Guess which I chose.

        My decision is undoubtedly unfair. May not be in my best interests and is no doubt a technological step backwards. But do I want to be relying on some-one who is so quick to judge? I refer not only to this thread, but also the "battle" with chromatic, tilly and others after the appearance of the article on DBIx::Recordset a couple of years ago.

        I'm sorry princepawn but every time I read posts of yours I sense a very negative energy. Every time I have something to do with C::DBI, CGI::A or other module authors I contact it is a very rewarding experience. I can't take the risk on a sometimes belligerant maintainer for something I rely on.


Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by boo_radley (Parson) on Jan 06, 2004 at 13:51 UTC

    Please dont allow your personal opinions to influence what is clearly a monestery matter of great importance
    A matter of great importance? I've always thought that MJD's maxim is delightful for the way it immediately addresses many misconceptions about computing, more specifically the way it addresses programming misconceptions in a seemingly complex but ultimately koan-esque fashion. Instead of a gentle correction, MJD employs an agitated, angry voice. It strips the subject of the veil of comfortable ignorance by chastizing (little L) laziness -- the desire not for synthesis of knowledge, for expansion and growth of the mind, but for an immediate and munificent catholicon to some problem. He says here, "look, you've clearly not done any work of your own of any merit. You've described a problem, and the work you've provided to show effort toward solving the problem is really no effort whatsoever". The capstone of his statement, "retardo" shocks the reader; its use implies that the original question was not simply poorly researched, but it insulted the reader by being of such stunngingly poor quality that it actively prevented the act of erudition and advancement.

    Oh, and writing

    [...]your own opinion, which is clearly flawed[...]
    makes you look presumptuous and undermines your thesis.

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Jan 06, 2004 at 11:40 UTC
    Hello, wake up! This is 2004, not the mid-1990's. Being overly political correct is passe.


    You can't just make excrement up and expect the computer to know what you mean, you mentally challenged person!

      Being overly political correct is passe


      I'm absolutely dying to make a politically incorrect comment here Abigail, but I can't, because sometimes people get upset when politically incorrect comments get made ( I'm sure you remember :)

      cLive ;-)

      Abigail, I do not agree with your implication that morals are to be followed like the fashions in attire.

      I don't find Podmaster's sig of such import that it would move me to raise the issue.

      "Shit" just has a coarse or low-class air that I do not aspire to. Call me hopelessly middle-class if you like or/and old fashioned.

      Princepawn's "retardo" complaint has some moral force but is weak to me. We will judge people by their behavior--enough stupid actions and we will judge the doer stupid. Each must judge how to apportion honesty and gentleness into their words.

      Be well.

        Abigail, I do not agree with your implication that morals are to be followed like the fashions in attire.

        It's nice to disagree, don't you think?

        What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed.

        You are what you think.

      Is there not a big difference between being "politically correct" and showing empathy, or at least consideration, for others?

      I suppose it depends upon how one would define "political correctness". I think of it as exhibiting excessive conformity to some arbitrary standard out of self interest. Some who like to use vulgar, obscene, and prejorative language see it as an assault on their prerogarive to speak as they please.

      It doesn't help anybody to demand, for instance, that we all refer to mentally handicapped people as "differently enabled" or even "special". These are euphamisms, used only for the self-serving purpose of avoiding the appearance of insensitivity.

      Euphamisms soon become epithets just like the words they replace. The word "retarded" is, in fact, such a word, originating in the public schools to describe progression through the system at a reduced, or "retarded" rate. It was a kinder substitute for the term "idiot", but has become a synonym for that prejorative word, and hasn't helped the situation in the least. On the other hand, casually calling mentally handicapped people "retards" displays a failure to recognize those persons as having value. It is all too easy to fall into the awful habit of promoting oneself by denigrating others. This is a matter of empathy, not political correctness, and no amount of imposed correct-speech will alleviate the problem.

      I personally believe the character traits that govern an individual's empathy for others, or the lack of it, are almost completely established by the age of five years or so. In other words, before the kid leaves home for school -- it comes from his parents. The careful reader will, of course, recognize my use of the term "mentally handicapped" as another euphamism, which I employ here to avoid the appearance of insensitivity.

      The same ideas apply to all kinds of "differences" among people (and other species, as well). People naturally tend to band together with similar people, and exaggerate the differences that distinguish "us" from "them". For instance, perl and Java programmers are wont to deride one another, which is nearly always counterproductive and ought to stop. This natural behavior is, in most instances, no longer beneficial to our species, but requires effort and training to overcome. (Lisp coders, on the other hand, are hilarious. You see the difference?)

      Discontinuing all prejorative terms, however, would deprive the language of such gems as: "Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: Even if you win, you're still retarded."

      How, exactly, should one strike the balance?

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 06, 2004 at 12:01 UTC
[CSS] Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by particle (Vicar) on Jan 06, 2004 at 15:32 UTC

    if you want to filter out podmaster's sig, i recommend style sheets. add this to your css user setting:

    div.pmsig div.pmsig-107642 { display:none; }

    ~Particle *accelerates*

      Heh, it makes your posts invisible too. I should write a patch that gives a warning when someone posts everything within the signature div tags.

        yeah, i use my sig area to keep oft-used tags like blockquote, code, paragraph, etc. since the patch that wraps sigs in div tags was installed, i haven't modified my behavior, and now all my posts are wrapped in the sig div tags. oh well.

        ~Particle *accelerates*

      You can leave out the div.pmsig bit; just div.pmsig-107642 will suffice. In fact, using both won't work if you want to hide my sig, because I edit the HTML in my sig to be <div class="pmsig pmsig-114691">. (Yes, you can list multiple classes for a single tag.)

      Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by CountZero (Bishop) on Jan 06, 2004 at 15:57 UTC
    You got me intrigued by the reference to your module.

    Alas, what a disappointment!

    Going through the list of "obscene" words we find such gems as:

    • bastard (if one filters that, half of the genealogy of Europe's nobility will disappear)
    • faggot (a bundle of sticks or twigs, esp. when bound together and used as fuel)
    • bitch (a female dog)

    Such a filter will never work; either it leaves too many "obscene" words in or it filters out too much. A regex is not bright enough to consider the context.


    "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

      faggot is also a British slang term for cigarette. Gives a whole new meaning to a "pack of fags". :-)

      We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

      Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by jdtoronto (Prior) on Jan 06, 2004 at 15:43 UTC
    It would seem that the inimitable MJD has a wonderfully wry sense of humour. Your post inspired me to google the original post in was it comp.lang.perl.misc and re-read some of his gems. In light of the present conversation I perhaps most enjoyed this one:

    11926 That's like taking a crap on someone's doorstep and then ringing the doorbell to ask for toilet paper.

    Funnier still is that I can imagine the situations where both maxims woukld be entirely appropriate when in discussion with another programmer.


      Here's another one, which is one of my favorite quotes ever: Re: Perl 5.6.1.
Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by mpolo (Chaplain) on Jan 06, 2004 at 13:50 UTC

    On principle, I would say that I do personally object to profanity in posts and signatures in general, but I've become pretty good at just ignoring isolated bits, and if the post is too thick with them, I don't read them. I'd rather not have to see the profanity, but that's the world we live in.

    Given Perlmonks partial identity as a place for newbies to ask for help, we should probably avoid profanity as much as possible, but I think that a -- vote for particularly offensive nodes or a /msg to the offending monk is probably a much better response than trying to filter things automatically. Besides, He Who Must Not Be Named must have better things to do with his time than to axe four-letter words.

    So, I guess I'm basically concurring with the rest... The "solution" here would have been to discuss this privately with PodMaster. Since he seems to be "intransigent" on the issue (see his response), though, I suppose even by that logic, coming public with the discussion was the right thing to do. But it seems that you (and I) are in the minority here.

    Perhaps you, princepawn could produce the necessary hacks to invoke your module based on a user preference. Based on vroom's comment on the original node, I don't particularly want to read the docs for your module to do it myself. :-) I doubt that Our Fearless Leader would object to a drop-in solution that makes a long-standing monk more comfortable in the monastery without incoveniencing the others. (Of course we then would have to have the discussion as to whether this defaults to "on" or "off"...)

      Oh, yes, and let's open a can of worms on what's offensive and what isn't. Personally, I find a phrase like God bless America (which goes back to the middle ages, with no separation of state and church) far more offensive than MJD's quote you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!.

      But let's not go that way.


        I find a phrase like God bless America ... far more offensive than MJD's quote ... But let's not go that way.

        OK, I won't go there, but you still got a ++ from me.


        New address of my CGI Course.

      princepawn, better yet you could turn your module into a proxy, then you can use it to filter all of your web content, not just Perlmonks. You can make this available to others who feel as you do, and it does not impact the rest of us or the server.

      Just my 2cents
Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by arden (Curate) on Jan 06, 2004 at 17:47 UTC
    From the relatively few posts that I've read of yours, I've noticed that you tend to spout your opinions and denounce anyone who sees the world differently as "clearly flawed." I truly wonder how so many of your posts have avoided reaping...

    Now, to address your views on words. I believe it was George Carlin who said on Explicit Lyrics, "There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of those words in and of themselves. They're only words. It's the context that counts." So tell me again just how your module is going to help???

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by duff (Parson) on Jan 06, 2004 at 15:52 UTC
    in fact what are the rules regarding obscenities?

    The rules are that there are no rules. Different people find different things offensive. The word "shit" in and of itself is no more offensive than any other word except that it has a history of being used in derogatory and profane contexts.

    Since you find a particular word offensive, the onus is on you to avoid that word or ignore posts by people that use that word or (as your shameless plug suggests) filter that word from text that uses it while not curtailing my right to read that word in its proper context.

      Different people find different things offensive.

      Quite true. In the United States, for example, you will never hear that word spoken on the Radio or TV in prime time because the U.S. Supreme Court declared it to be profane. Now, if you don't live in the U.S.A., you probably don't care. In fact, if you do live in the U.S.A., you probably don't care. Nevertheless, in the U.S., it is hardly radical thinking to consider any use of that word whatsoever to be obsene.

      It would seem that a rather large argument has spawned over a moot point. Those who are in power to do something about this have clearly already made their decision. The only thing everybody else seems to be doing is expressing how "overly annoyed" they are about the original post.

      update: Also wanted to metnion that the same U.S. Supreme court case that declared these words profane on TV and Radio is the reason that you will never find that word used on a ".us" domain name.

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by djantzen (Priest) on Jan 06, 2004 at 14:56 UTC

    I might take your concerns with some seriousness were it not for the fact that this and your original post ended with an advertisement for own module. I suggest you follow your own advice: if you actually find the sig offensive then feel completely free to filter such things, but do not veil your attempt at self-aggrandizement behind a complaint that nearly every rational person would find patently trivial.

    "The dead do not recognize context" -- Kai, Lexx
Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by jdtoronto (Prior) on Jan 06, 2004 at 15:31 UTC
    I find the following text: MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!" unacceptably offensive on two grounds
    One mans opinion. Why not use your module yourself then?

    As one accustomed to rigorous academic debate I find woosy responses and unsound arguments totally offensive. But should they be reaped? NO! If the words in question were an undisguised personal insult then there may be a case for reaping. But otherwise? They are part of lifes rich tapestry and like others, I have to say I enjoy those words. Much more meaningful than 'garbage in , garbage out' or however else you might like to describe the phenomenon.

    Perl Monks is just like television, if you don't like the content, find the off switch.


Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by dws (Chancellor) on Jan 06, 2004 at 18:52 UTC
Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by coreolyn (Parson) on Jan 06, 2004 at 15:16 UTC

    When I first saw this post my eyes rolled. I abhor censorship of any type and defend individuality. I figured this was just one of those flame nodes and moved on. Then this morning I observed PodMaster spewing in the chatterbox and felt obliged to make my opinion known.

    For myself part of what makes this site great is it's mix professionalism and depth of characters in its contributors. Personally I find that while hubris is a unique trait of Perl developers, PodMaster's signature line detracts from professionalism, character, and his perception of appropriate hubris, but it is up to him how to present his persona.

    I simply trust that there are enough good quality posts on this site to override the line noise that some posts/signatures create.

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by CountZero (Bishop) on Jan 06, 2004 at 20:34 UTC
    One famous Belgian comedian ("Urbanus") once said "Handicapped people have the right to be made fun of".


    "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by shotgunefx (Parson) on Jan 06, 2004 at 20:23 UTC
    Probably beating a dead horse but...

    I hardly think this is a "a monestery matter of great importance". Certainly not at this point. It could become one, I imagine if the site got a case of Slashdotitis, but right now, it's all pretty much above the board. Outside of this post, I have never heard any complaints and his use of shit in the context is totatly appropriate.

    If the word shit offends you so, how do you cope with the offenses of the real world? We all have things that irk us. A potty word should be pretty low on that scale. To me it's a matter of tolerance.

    As far as retardo, in it's context, well I won't lose any sleep over it.


    "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."
Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by talexb (Chancellor) on Jan 06, 2004 at 22:36 UTC

    Taken in isolation, the sentence may be offensive. In context, having seen MJD in person, speaking at various YAPC::NA events, the comment is quite apt, and consistent with his views about craftmanship as it applies to software development.

    The law has a term called equitable estoppel which essentially means that if you discover someone's breaking a deal, you have to take action within a reasonable period of time. PodMaster's been using that quote in his .sig for ages (I think someone said about a year) -- it seems odd that you didn't feel the urge to complain about it until now.

    And offering your module to block the offending text is an odd non seqitur -- if it really offends you, disable the signature block on your User Settings (as already suggested).

    Alex / talexb / Toronto

    Life is short: get busy!

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by tcf22 (Priest) on Jan 07, 2004 at 16:17 UTC
    I'm personally not offended by many things, including this. "Shit" is part of my everyday language, along with other words that I won't bring into the discussion here. I really think that is a matter of how the word is used. I can say much cruder things than that, without using any profanity at all.

    - Tom

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by CountZero (Bishop) on Feb 25, 2004 at 21:32 UTC
    Don't you all find it very disappointing that princepawn never answered any of our comments?

    I find that in very bad taste: you start a discussion, get everyone worked up and then you don't participate.

    It shows no style and no respect.


    "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by JSchmitz (Canon) on Jan 12, 2004 at 14:47 UTC
    I agree with BrowerUK The idea of a word being offensive is really just plane silly. It is JUST a word and it is usually just slang meaning for another word that is not considered offensive. This has come up on the Monastary now several times usually brought up by some holier than thou puritan. I hope this is the last time it is brought up -

      Yeah. I don't personally like heavy use of obscenity or scatology, but I like the "bad words" brigade even less. I don't think it's something there should be rules about, and I think that too much "social pressure" is generally counterproductive (as it turns people like me into activists).

Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by ysth (Canon) on Aug 09, 2004 at 23:13 UTC
    This appears to have been princepawn's farewell message. Moments later he said in the chatterbox: '/me hits "create node" and then mounts his dark horse and makes off into the night...' and hasn't been publicly heard from since.
    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Let's discuss Podmaster's Signature
by artist (Parson) on Jan 06, 2004 at 18:42 UTC
    Discussing reactions are not good all the times.

    Better is to make the acts for better reactions if reaction is your food.

A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://319078]
Approved by broquaint
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others drinking their drinks and smoking their pipes about the Monastery: (4)
As of 2023-06-08 14:50 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    How often do you go to conferences?

    Results (32 votes). Check out past polls.