http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=1123270


in reply to Re^2: MJD's Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly
in thread MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly

My edits were redactions of sections saying what i could not do for 6 or 12 months afterward. I'm relatively sure there was no other intention.

I went back and forth on considering the reply. At first i thought someone else would consider it, and was surprised when it wasn't. Considering a post when i am the recipient seems tacky. Ultimately, after realizing he has an unpleasant attitude (for example, the enlargement of "fail") i figured he either has it in for me or just a jerk to everybody. I considered it to let the people decide, even though he is a well-known person here and the chances of his post being removed was small.

I do appreciate your explanation. However, as it needed to be explained, it wasn't quoted, and includes an expletive and epithet, i still think it is not an appropriate post.

  • Comment on Re^3: MJD's Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: MJD's Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly
by jdporter (Canon) on Apr 13, 2015 at 19:57 UTC

    You could have simply asked me to clarify. I would gladly do it. In fact, I've gone done it. :-)

    No, I'm not out to get you. I am somewhat of a jerk, sometimes, though not intentionally. I'm sorry.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

      Thank you for responding, redacting, and clarifying. I still don't appreciate the expletive, but, that's life.

        I still don't appreciate the expletive

        I couldn't see anything there that I would classify as an "expletive".
        It's way OT (and therefore not incumbent on you to respond), but I'd be interested to learn of the thought process that lead to that statement of yours.

        Cheers,
        Rob