| [reply] |
Those who are not willing to behave that professionally should send reply
Do you feel that you have behaved "professionally" in this thread?
BTW, to add new content to a node, please leave the original content intact, and precede new content with the word "Update:" in bold. Otherwise, replies to your original content will make little sense.
| [reply] |
Update: Note that jimmyali has completely changed the
original content of his node.
Thanks GrandFather for restoring original content
(which makes struck out text below obsolete).
In essence, his original content complained
that AnomalousMonk posted the first "camel structure" reply (i.e. Re: DNA LIGATION PERL SCRIPT)
when it was in fact posted by Anonymous Monk.
Because he wrongly
assumed that AnomalousMonk was responsible for the first reply,
he responded angrily to AnomalousMonk later in the thread
for no good reason, using the word "bullcrap" several times
(BTW, I think "camel dung" would have been more appropriate).
If you examine the original thread carefully, you will see that the original "camel structure" was posted by Anonymous Monk (i.e. posted anonymously, we don't know who posted it), while the helpful suggestion re Perl jobs was posted by AnomalousMonk, an individual (and well-respected) Perl Monks member. In any case, if you were offended by the "camel structure", you should have responded to that post, not the later one.
| [reply] |
jimmyali: It seems there has been some confusion as to attribution. When I chose AnomalousMonk as my monkname, it seemed a cute idea; I have since had second thoughts for various reasons, one of which should be obvious in light of recent exchanges.
As others have written, I hope that if you have an interest in gaining or enhancing a knowledge of Perl, you will stick around and feel free to benefit from and perhaps, ultimately, contribute to the conversation. (Also as others have noted, I hope, if you decide to stay, you will spend some time acquainting yourself with the practices and 'culture' of the monastery.)
And with respect to the original Camel of Contention (with which, to be clear, I have no connection): I would be terrified to do so myself without access to a very safe, secure testing environment, but I would not be greatly surprised if one were to run this program and find that some droll monk had decided to write a complete solution to the original problem and then publish it as a Program in the Shape of a Camel.
| [reply] |
but I would not be greatly surprised if one were to run this program and find that some droll monk had decided to write a complete solution to the original problem and then publish it as a Program in the Shape of a Camel.
Complete, with some debug statements. If camels are disliked, I can furnish the same program in B-DNA form, but the update leads me to believe the OP figured out how to decode the picture, and can now proceed with his job interview.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
