|Perl Monk, Perl Meditation|
Re^4: Additions to the FAQ and a Community Statementby Anonymous Monk
|on Apr 16, 2013 at 12:41 UTC||Need Help??|
Meaning does not need to be contained, in order to be implied by the writer and subsequently inferred by the reader. It is when the message inferred differs from that which was implied, that is the cause of the strife in that other thread.
You picked out posts by one or more anonymous posters for particular comment, despite that the most grievous content comes in the earlier, nymed posts that incited those anonymous response.
Which means that you either did not read the thread yourself, or only read in isolation, those portions of the thread to which you were pointed.
And that implies you came here attempting to use the brown envelope of officialdom, to give your second-hand, pre-judicial, biased message the weight of some official judgement.
You therefore compound the original problem, that of one member of the community sitting in unilateral judgement of another, by doing the same again.
Not so much a policeman come to see justice, but a hired mouthpiece come to give final word to one parties view.
Not a calming influence come to smooth the waters, but another cook come to stir the pot.