http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=958606


in reply to Re^4: Modern Perl 2011-2012 Edition
in thread Modern Perl 2011-2012 Edition

If you had copied the entire review in full...
After skimming both, I believe the OP did so.

Oh. You're right. It does seem so. I wish I had noticed, so that I could have taken the other lemma, annoyed but not enough to say anything. For that, I apologize.

That's a silly logical fallacy and quite irrelevant.

Suffice it to say that we disagree entirely on this point.

The relevant question to me seems to be...

That's one relevant question.

not worth arguing.

I guess we don't share that evaluation of the situation.

I also think that maybe, given your interest in this particular case, you ought to recuse yourself.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Modern Perl 2011-2012 Edition
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Mar 09, 2012 at 03:30 UTC
    I also think that maybe, given your interest in this particular case, you ought to recuse yourself.

    I appreciate the concern, but I thought about that beforehand and still stand by what I wrote.

    Certainly I have an interest in having my books reviewed, but keep two things in mind. First, I give this book away for free. Second, I have a thread in my inbox right now lamenting the lack of publicity for things like Perl books and Perl culture and Perl community from Tom Christiansen (who also has an interest in having his books reviewed.)

    Scolding people for promoting Perl seems counterproductive.

[reply]

      Maybe you don't see it, but there could very well be an appearance of a conflict of interest here. The OP was not just "promoting Perl", he was drawing attention to your book. (Surely your hubris is not so great as to believe that your book is Perl -- or an authorized representative thereof?) The point being, one might wonder whether you'd have been as apt to defend the post if it had been a review of someone else's book, or, conversely, if anyone else would have rushed to defend the OP against my charges — as, it indeed appears, no one else has.

      Anyway, it's minor, so I'm happy to let it go.

[reply]

        conversely, if anyone else would have rushed to defend the OP against my charges — as, it indeed appears, no one else has.

        Because chromatic already covered it

        The OPs post was not shilling in any way shape or form.

        The review was short, but its an actual review, it stands on its own, so despite a link to OPs blog, it wasn't spamming. As long as the node is relevant, links to your own blog are allowed , even in signatures, and its not spam.

[reply]

In Section Book Reviews