comment on

Hfffp.

What I see is an article that defends the hypothesis that CGI is far from perfect. It does so focussing on three important issues, and presenting arguments why CGI "suxs". IMO, the article is better written than most articles here - although it's not perfect. You may not agree with its conclusions, but all you say (as an anonymous person) is that the article is ignorant. But you don't actually refute the arguments given.

All I can say is that you are ignorant one here. And that's without even addressing whether or not CGI "sux" or not.

Abigail

In reply to Re: Ignorant Article by Abigail-II
in thread Ignorant Article by Anonymous Monk

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


No such thing as a small change
	PerlMonks