Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re: You're welcome — was Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)

by shmem (Chancellor)
on Apr 19, 2017 at 16:56 UTC ( #1188294=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to You're welcome — was Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)
in thread -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)

As already said, context matters; and then, taking absolutes as an argument gives a false picture, because if, say, Old Gray Bear was "foul mouthed" in one post, how many such posts of BrowserUk are needed to weigh against that?

See.

But even percentage is wrong, misleading (and off the point), because to get an accurate picture, you would need to conduct a thorough survey of the net effect of BrowserUk's incriminated posts (for "bad language"! seriously? Pipi Kaka Furz?) in an infallible manner. Pulling out only bad words is bad science, as is evaluating the nodes reputation. Many things get downvoted offhand; but they may yield effect, even to the point where one's downvoting is seen later as erroneous.

The effect on each of our fellow monks is always individual and cannot be measured by statistics because... well, because it is individual, an effect caused on an individual mind, with its own settings, background, temporary conditions, parents, condition of spouse and whatnot.

So, this compilation amounts to "he said jehovah! let's stone him!"

Congratulations on your mission to save the Perl hoi polloi from our crap algorithms and wrongthink.

Hmm... nosepicking.?

perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'
  • Comment on Re: You're welcome — was Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: You're welcome — was Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)
by Your Mother (Bishop) on Apr 19, 2017 at 23:24 UTC

    I think stirring up this thread is a big mistake but I respect and like you so it matters to me what you think.

    If I had read my own post without context, I would have had the reaction you did. My post was in the context of some then recent history and made because of fatigue from what I perceived as false humility poured over braggadocio wedded with XP whining.

    It’s not about profanity; that was just an easy highlight without the need for deep reading and analytical scribbling. It’s about unwarranted hostility and the penchant to dig in and dish the last word.

    I considered BUK a friend. I had defended his—and a couple other high-contributing monks who have some rough social skills—attitude in deference to the level of skill and help he brings and I came to his aid personally in private messages in the CB a few years ago and felt pride and a real connection that I could help a senior monk having a hard day. Then, a bit back, he called me a “twat” and a “pedant” (the definition of the pot calling the kettle black here) for replying too flatly about a Unicode/mixed-corrupt-data question; Mixed Unicode and ANSI string comparisons?. He felt to the need to double down on it, too; Context, pedantry and appropriate response.. At that point I’d had enough, clearly, and that sentiment had legs.

    I respected and liked him. So it mattered to me what he thought. I was pretty hurt. Deference is permanently off the table for me. Case by case only now and the case in question rattled my cage.

    From a couple weeks ago; A data selection problem(in3D).

    OP: Any thoughts, speculations or suggestions gratefully received.

    Response: [This? Is this the idea?]

    OP: …Either you have something that will help … or you don't, and move on. …if I wanted a half-arsed solution, I had (and demonstrated) that a week ago. …But if joy is too much for you....

    Hostility, not grace, for answering the call of participation, for falling short, in direct contradiction to the tone offered in the question. It’s a mode, not an outlier.

    Footnote, FTR, I do not dispute whatsoever the plain fact that BUK is among the most valuable contributors here.

    Update: regarding “…the penchant to dig in and dish the last word.” Got the last word twice, so far, this time. Oh, it was a banner effing post at the old PerlMonks family.

      And since you brought it up. Have you been back to that subthread?

      Have you read the alternate subthread resulting from the same post to which you added your non reply?

      Do you not see how that alternate subthread moves the discussion forward; where as your adds exactly nothing to it?

      I also considered you "a friend" -- we've had many good interactions -- but wouldn't it be hypocritical of me to not react to your non-contribution in the same way I would had it come from anonymonk?

      It saddens me that you choose to be so offended by my very mild rebuke of you for your non-helpful, non-useful, non-contributory, non-informative, non-response; but then a lot about this place saddens me.

      But what saddens me most of all is that there are so many here who's only contributions are to stifle, harangue and suppress those who'd like to get on with using this place for a free and open exchange of ideas as it's intended. So sad.


      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". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit
      Response: This? Is this the idea?

      Once again, you omit context. You fail to quote the part of the post to which I responded. The part I quoted in my response. Ie. "Is that intended (and only) use of this magic palette?"

      What you see as "Hostility, not grace,"; I see as proportionate response in kind.

      As with every single SoPW I have posted going back years; there is always some anonymonk with a chip on his shoulder telling me that he doesn't feel my question is worthy of asking; or my purpose worthy of his (or PM's) consideration. My reply simply pointed out that as with every other SoPW by every other monk, he is free to ignore my questions.


      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". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit
Re^2: You're welcome — was Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 19, 2017 at 17:10 UTC
    I downvoted this node.

      Well done. I upvoted yours. *shrug*

      perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1188294]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (7)
As of 2019-07-18 09:19 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?