I'd like to contribute a short message to the PMD section pertaining to "Perlmonks, The Community" (as known to the outside world, embraced by the Perl Foundation, etc), as opposed to a contribution concerning "Perlmonks, the Hobby", which is what is foremost on the minds of many Monks most likely to read a PMD.
Failing drastically to cover everything because the "everything" includes mostly what goes on in the Perlmonks cb - which many Monks never speak in - this message will touch on the series of ongoing incidents partially documented here and will be brief and general, essentially a short list of conclusions which I have come to as a result of the events mentioned (and others unmentioned, too numerous to count).
Firstly, if the topic of the message isn't "Perlmonks, the Toy", the amount and duration of interest in it seems shockingly low. That's apparently because despite the reality that an unused piece of software has no value, the people at the Perlmonks site and whether they are happy, growing (learning), and not demoralized isn't on the radar screen of a kid fixated on playing with his toy (and making sure that he has to share it with as few people as possible).
Secondly, the demoralizing aspects of being at Perlmonks are worse than most people experienced even in the least pleasant high school experience many could recount. As a metaphor, say a teacher of a class completely fails to adhere to any code in terms of acting on a responsibility to keep order, and lets student-on-student bullying go unchecked. Say on top of that the teacher sides with certain students, perhaps for self-protection, and when she does exercize her institutionally-granted powers to coerce changes of behavior from students, she does so with complete caprice according to mood or demands of her posse. That's an example of a demoralizing environment in which learning is incredibly hampered; and that's Perlmonks.
Finally, to return to the concrete events mentioned, the are just a couple of pretty hard-core facts that don't boil down much further than what I can state here. One is that use of the term "troll" is the new "fag" or "abo" or "paki" - the word you can use that your mates will cheer you on for, and nobody will name you a flamer for.
Second is that two people with utlimately prominent roles in acting as police of the Perlmonks community are utterly unsuited for it. One does this quite regularly and the other I have not seen do it openly for a long time, but he can, and he has apparently got the most day to day control over the running of the site. The former person mentioned is Yves Orton (demerphq) and the latter is Tye McQueen (tye).
This needs to be made very clear: I don't want the kind of control powers over Perlmonks, the Toy, or over Perlmonks, the Community/Site, that Yves or Tye have. I am not dispositionally suited for it (that means it would be a poor match for my gifts and weaknesses). So everything I am saying here is just what I believe that some future person will have to contend with as the first set of issues if they did decide to dedicate themselves to the improvement of Perlmonks, the Community.
Yves (demerphq) thinks it is fine to brandish threats over people and attempt to modify their behavior to his liking that way. Of course what this often results in is that exactly the same is returned to him. But he doesn't learn from it each time it happens. Also, to use a metaphor, imagine that a sheriff is called into a bar brawl at the Saloon. His method for dealing with it is to whip out his gun 10 seconds after arriving and shoot the first 3 people he lays eyes on after spinning around on his heel. Totally random, left absolutely up to chance. That is demerphq's strategy for keepin' the order and administrin' the justice at Perlmonks. It's actually worse than if there was no "sheriff" at all. Yves should voluntarily relinquish his power to either moderate or "borg" (prevent from chatting) today.
In Tye (tye)'s case, the simple ... uh, call it inability to learn or complete lack of the fundamental concepts that seem to be the case for Yves ... those simple deficits are apparently not the main thing. Tye is actually truly malicious. He conceived a vendatta towards me a number of years ago, and it has been ignored as well as possible by me until recently (again, see the WWW page referenced above). It's up to the reader to try to conceive of what could happen to create the best outcome for "Perlmonks, the Community" wrt Tye McQueen. Without a doubt many who have coded pieces of "Perlmonks, the Toy" and had Tye commit their changes are sure where their "loyalties lie". But this message is about the Community, not the Toy, and while I am sure that many people could and maybe will step up with shrill defenses against what they see as an unwarranted personal attack, the evidence for a lengthy pattern of unwarranted provocation, baiting, and general negativity by Tye towards certain individuals is simply unassailable. It sets the most demoralizing and iniquitous sociological standard for Perlmonks, the Community, that I can imagine. I have a new-found respect for those who can manage to claim a role of supervisorship over a community, and then not completely fail to exercize even modest effort in doing it. The "workmanship" ethic is the same whether you are building a desk or a school, I think, and I see no pride of workmanship in this regard from Yves Orton, whatever his code is like; and from Tye McQueen I see nothing but vicious insecurity-based vindictiveness.
Soren Andersen Intrepid
There's a great deal wrong with this rebuke. The most directly observable is that it relies on the its target being 'worked up', and needing to 'relax', and possibly to 'get some fresh air'. If you study this reliance, and the attitude which assumes it and the situations which might spark that attitude, you'll come to see this exact rebuke everywhere. And it will disgust you.
Have you been following this soap opera? From his actions on the CB he came across as rather worked up. The fact that he is upset enough to make this post say so as well.
Have you been following this soap opera?
Nope. Nor do I care much about it: I'm only disappointed with some of the replies to the OP.
The fact that he is upset enough to make this post say so as well.
Perhaps it seems this way when you've been following a soap opera. The OP doesn't need emotional context, and the emotional context applied to it here don't aid in analysis.
Although, the whole point of a soap opera is that its audience continually considers it on an emotional, interpersonal level. Maybe if I joined with the crowd here and jeered at the OP for being so clearly distraught and so emotionally involved, for having wasted so much time on such unimportant things; if I advised him to get laid or go walk in the park or imbibe alcohol; if I put such a fantastic enough emotional context over the broadest gist of his post that I could then make replies entirely to that emotional context and not at all to his post? If I did these things, I might be enjoying this on the level of the OP's repliers. But I've yet to get into soap operas.
Why do you abuse yourself so?
Makeshifts last the longest.
Secondly, the demoralizing aspects of being at Perlmonks are worse than most people experienced even in the least pleasant high school experience many could recount.
No one here at perlmonks ever forced me to show up 7 hours a day 180 days out of the year. Neither has anyone here ever pulled a knife on me, sucker-punched me in the hall, shot a friend of mine, or threatened to fail me for not selling raffle tickets.
You're not winning any converts with this stuff; you're just driving uninvolved parties like myself to look-up the CB instructions for "/ignore" for the first time since I've been here.
Do you do this for attention? Why?
Is this just a continuation of this?
You really need to step away from the computer and go outside and look at that big blue thing up top. You know the thing that has the bright light that rises and lowers every day.
I never saw anyone borged before. Good job!
It seems that what you're complaining about is that there are cliques here at Perl Monks. That's true. Certain people tend to hang around together, especially on the cb. I've found that almost every time I've made a comment on the cb, I've been ignored. So - I stopped using the cb. It sounds like you're getting borged for some reason, which sucks, but we're all pretty much at the mercy of the people who have that power. Alas, we have "Hobson's choice" - take it or leave it. The value I get from Perl Monks far outweighs the seeming rudeness of some folks on the cb, so I take the good and ignore the bad. Despite its imperfections, PM has so much to offer.
Hi, wazoox. I believe you - everyone hates me, and they all like you ;-). Who knows what the problem was? Maybe I was coming across as a jerk, or everyone was hung over, or whatever. It could have been the timezones, as you suggest - that particular time might have been for closed cliques, and I was an intruder. It's not that important, really - I just used /chatteroff, and the problem went away. Despite this, Perl Monks has been a great place to be, giving me information, ideas, insights, and even a good laugh now and then from the wry humor people can have here.
You have the time and energy to maintain a public list of people you don't like on your homenode with a short essay for almost every one, a list of every time in recent history you have taken offense to how other people treat you, and multiple vague and rambling essays about something or other, and you still wonder why people don't know what to think of you or how to treat you?
May I respectfully suggest you consult a mental health professional? At the risk of performing a long-distance psychological diagnosis, I cannot understand with your thoughts or motivations and believe you might do well to talk them over with someone neutral in person.
May I respectfully suggest you consult a mental health professional? At the risk of performing a long-distance psychological diagnosis, I cannot understand with your thoughts or motivations and believe you might do well to talk them over with someone neutral in person.
Please don't ever make this suggestion again, to anyone who has not already personally confided mental illness and, say, a recent repeat of an oft-disasterous decision to avoid prescribed drugs.
The 'out of deep, sincere concern, I think that you should seek a psychiatrist' is a repulsive political idiom of our times and to see it here in perlmonks is alarming.
If someone I care about were showing the warning signs of extreme stress or a psychological disorder, I hope that the people who noticed it would not turn away. How can I not show a fellow human being even a touch of the same concern?
Take offense if you must, but I certainly intended none. (Psychiatrist? Psychologist? Counselor? Mediator? There are plenty of ways to discuss a situation with a neutral party that do not involve medication.)
With the utmost respect, this is a load of utterly self-serving crap. I'm doing this for your own good - how could I turn away from someone who is so deeply lost in error? What you are presenting is a thinly-veiled ad hominem argument, touching protestations of concerns notwithstanding. It seeks to invalidate the OP's post without actually addressing the issues he or she raised. There was no reason to raise the issue of mental health. If you were suggesting that a less biased third party might help, then any helpful person - friend, teacher, coach, co-worker, etc. - could be used. No need for this person to be a mental health worker.
No competent mental health professional would dare make a diagnosis, nor form an opinion of someone's mental health, based solely on what that person writes in a post or series of posts. What you are seeing is a minute fragment of who this person is, a fragment devoid of almost all emotional clues, relying entirely on his or her chosen words in response to matters that take place here. You have no basis for making any diagnosis of stress, psychological disorder, or other condition, even if you are a professional in the field. Since you are apparently not a professional, your "diagnosis" is even less relevant. It is nothing more than a shameful putdown.
You seem to be trying to imply that, since this person sounds upset, and since some people who have mental problems are upset, therefore, this person has mental problems. This does not follow, of course. He or she may also have a valid complaint about unfair treatment. Most people get upset when treated badly. That's not a sign of illness.
He suggested that they might talk with a nuetral third party and because you have negative preconcieved notions of what that means you got all this? I might be strechting it a bit but i think he was probably hoping that a third party unrelated to this incident might be able to give some clarity and help that no text responce to the OP could possibly provide specificlay because they lack the emotional clues to tell the OP that we are sincere and not satiric.
___________
Eric Hodges
You are misstating the facts. He suggested that OP see a mental health worker, which is an indirect way of insulting someone. There was not an iota of compassion or concern in that comment, despite the teary-eyed pleadings to the contrary.
If he were suggesting a third party, there was no reason why it had to be a mental health worker. Any uninvolved person - friend, co-worker, coach, etc. (as I commented previously) would have done.
Turn it around for a moment. Let's say you posted something, and someone suggested you see a mental health worker. Would you not feel that this person was being insulting? Would you believe for a moment that he or she was only trying to help you, by saying you're unstable, or stressed, or whatever? I certainly wouldn't.
"your ADHD or other mental deficits are not my problem."
-Lee
"To be civilized is to deny one's nature."
I think you and I get along OK in the CB, so in an attempt to provide a reasonably objective contribution and try to smooth over what has become an unfortunate situation, perhaps I could make a couple of comments:
- Yes, there are occasionally what I would consider to be incidents of bad manners on PM. You and I are both guilty of that too; no one is perfect, and there are times when all of us type something into the CB that we then regret.
- There are people on Perlmonks whose manners perhaps generally leave something to be desired. I mention no names. But I have to keep reminding myself that this is essentially a programming site, and technical people are often (in the real world as well as virtually) a little abrupt with each other. Those of us who are prone to take offence at this should try to remember where we are.
- There has been at least one occasion where someone borged you, and I thought at the time it was appropriate. IIRC you were being what I considered to be needlessly personal and voluble in your response to a new user asking questions that are documented in perldoc. That's something that does provoke some disapproval from others in the CB - me included.
- Friendly criticism: you hold strong views, which is perfectly OK, but you do sometimes tend to provoke an argument (also OK - discussion of wide ranging subjects makes the CB interesting) and then express your views in lots of rapidly submitted, substantial blocks of text. Although you may not be aware of it, from this side it conveys the impression of holding forth, or what I would call 'going off on one'.
Not that I want to convey the impression that it's all your own fault. Far from it, there does seem to have developed a 'Intrepids going off on one, lets borg him before he builds up a head of steam' approach. While I have some sympathy with it at times, it does seem to be edging increasingly in the direction of victimisation. For what it's worth, there does appear to be an element of mischievous schoolboy humour in it.
The relationship between you and some of the site grandees does seem to have degenerated into a downward spiral. Many another person would have given up and left the site in that situation, and it's to your credit that you have the strength of character not to have gone off in a huff.
BUT, your response to it does come across as rather more confrontational than is really necessary. In particular, your habit of documenting who you're ignoring on your homenode. Personally, I'm not interested who you are ignoring and why, and I think many others would agree. By documenting this, you are making a pointed public statement of your opinions of particular people, which could be considered rather rude.
It's worth bearing in mind that the way we construct our role in any relationship is through a dynamic, ongoing process of negotiation; we conform to the others expectations to a certain extent, and we help to construct the relationship by contributing a proportion of our own expectations.
For the future I'd like to suggest the following:
Intrepid: I understand your point of view, but continuing to be confrontational will just perpetuate the problem. A few homenode edits might show a willingness to compromise.
power users: While I can see an element of mischevious humour in borging Intrepid when the CB messages from him start to flow thick, fast and strongly opinionated, it is unfair to treat him differently from anyone else - whatever has happened in the past.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"If there is such a phenomenon as absolute evil, it consists in treating another human being as a thing."
John Brunner, "The Shockwave Rider".
Can you spare 2 minutes to help with my research? If so, please click here
and it's to your credit that you have the strength of character not to have gone off in a huffIntrepid was borged for a day. Instead of taking his forced cooling off period from chat, he created cannotsilence and returned to the chatterbox to continue.
it is unfair to treat him differently from anyone else - whatever has happened in the past.But he is different, as evidenced by this thread. He just won't quit or start over. The purpose of perlmonks is to have fun enjoying perl, not picking pointless fights.
-- for this post. While I agree with most of what you said (and, for the record, what I've seen of the proceedings show Intrepid behaving in a rude, utterly childish and irrational manner IMO), the fact that you posted this as AnonyMonk puts it into the realm of sniping and will only serve to further strengthen Intrepid's persecution complex. I thought g0n's post was a good attempt at bridge-building, more forgiving than I would have been but then sometimes you have to do that.
All dogma is stupid.
I have to say, I don't think your complaint about the anonymous posting has helped matters at all.
The issue has been beaten to death. Please read (e.g.):
To clarify, I wasn't complaining about anonymous postings in general, just about this specific post. Even without reading the links you give I can think of several valid reasons why one would want to post as AM and I'm fine with that (my previous suggestion for changing one aspect of AM posting notwithstanding). But in this particular case it is clear that this was a Monk who was in the CB yesterday and who is commenting on Intrepid's character without having the decency of identifying himself. Regardless of the accuracy of his statements, that is sniping and I personally don't approve of that (not that anyone needs my approval, just giving my opinion).
All dogma is stupid.
But in this particular case it is clear that this was a Monk who was in the CB yesterday and who is commenting on Intrepid's character without having the decency of identifying himself.I am Anonymous Monk. I've been visiting for about a year and I don't have an account.
I have to say the same as Anonymonk already did: the chatterbox is visible to all, so its entirely conceivable that someone who has no account could have been watching this episode and know every detail of it. What would make you think otherwise?
Makeshifts last the longest.
This was already suggested -- it is, in fact, the very first reply to Intrepid's post. You do not add anything by restating it with the sneering enhancement of '(get laid)'.
If that's what you read into my reply
I didn't read into your reply, I classified it. Verily, the whole point of my reply to your reply was to point out that this entire class of reply is disgusting, and ubiquitous. So, it doesn't suprise me that I immedaitely see a second instance of a ubiquitous class of sneering reply.
As for this reply of yours, I don't much like it either. I might've said:
Er, I don't see any similarity between this person's reply and mine.-- which neatly avoids any conceitful psychoanalyzation. Of course, I wouldn't have made your original reply either...
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I stick this spoon in my eye!"
Complaining about the chatterbox is similar to complaining to a TV company that a program that no-one forced you to watch offended you so deeply that you felt compelled to watch to absorb the full horror.
You don't get on with (quite) a few members of the chatterbox. The chatterbox is optional. To quote Bill Hicks: "I think I see a way outta this!".
davis
Might I suggest that you take a short rest from Perlmonks, when you get so worked up about it? It's not to say you're wrong in all of your opinions, but if it is SUCH a source of hostility for you, perhaps some time away will give you a fresh perspective.
Or another good way to deal with frustrations you have, especially if they anger you to the extent that you feel the need to meticulously record every one of them, might be to step back, take a deep breath or ten, and practice letting go. It very well could be the "attack" you perceived in one case wasn't meant the way you took it. Sometimes reacting with overt sensitivity causes your judgement to be biased towards seeing emnity that isn't really present. And even if you are justified in feeling singled out, isn't sometimes the best way to deal with an attack to simply ignore it, and devote your energies toward more positive, worthwhile pursuits?
@ARGV=split//,"/:L"; map{print substr crypt($_,ord pop),2,3}qw"PerlyouC READPIPE provides"
I've suggested you take a break and adjust your priorities, so have several other monks. You've even gotten a suggestion to get some neutral counselling. You really should consider taking that advice.
I'm not mocking you, I'm giving you the best advice I can. It appears (to me) that you're borderline obsessed with this stuff. Let it go, persue something that brings you joy for a few days and see what happens...
borderline obsessed
To say that he is 'obsessed' would be to make a simple observation. Is it because of your mother that you use psychiatric language?
Using psychiatric terms to explain the behaviour of someone who is doing something that doesnt appear to make sense is hardly wrong. The OP appears to be unreasonable, the documents he posted sound like the rantings of a deranged madman. His behaviour in the CB from what I've seen is of someone who is quite simply not all there.
You seem to think that its automatically wrong to use such terms to try to explain the behaviour of someone who appears to be irrational. Id say such a position is it itself irrational, and insulting to those making the judgements. They are entitled to hold their own opinion and its not up to you to decide if their criticism is appropriate or not.
They are entitled to hold their own opinion and its not up to you to decide if their criticism is appropriate or not.
How charming! Am I also entitled to hold my own opinions? Can it also be not up to you to decide the appropriateness of my opinions?
It happens that I opine that people should avoid reflexive psychiatric language. In other posts I've expressed this opinion in stronger language; here, I gently noted it.
Using psychiatric terms to explain the behaviour of someone who is doing something that doesnt appear to make sense is hardly wrong.
Yes, it is wrong. Unless you are a psychologist (or other mental health professional), you don't even know what the words mean. It's a common way to invalidate what a person says, without addressing the issues that person raises. Challenge the person's mental competence and you can ignore whether he or she has a valid point. This is a fallacy.
You characterize the OP's statements, posts, or documents as "irrational", "like the rantings of a deranged madman", "irrational". These are all opinions, and as you point out, you're entitled to them. However, they are content-free. You don't like what the OP says, that is clear. You have done nothing to show that his or her statements are false or illogical, aside from labeling them so. You have offered no basis for your opinion that the statements are "irrational", etc.
I will note that "deranged madman" is not a psychiatric term. It's nothing more than name-calling, little more than childish taunting at recess. It has no place in any rational discussion. But of course, this isn't a rational discussion, is it? It's more of a public free-for-all against someone who, for whatever reason, is unpopular.
There is no need to "explain the behavior" of the OP. He or she made some comments - was perhaps upset, or angry, or hurt. Very few people actually bothered to address the issues raised. Most people just attacked the OP for being "difficult", or "obnoxious", or "crazy", or whatever.
The fact that so many people took the trouble to attack this person, without addressing the issues, speaks volumes. It doesn't make the OP correct, or the others incorrect. But it does suggest that there is far more to this issue than is being stated in the thread. Lots of people are "worked up" over this, not only the OP. If the OP needs psychiatric help because of what he or she posted, then so do many of those who responded, and for the same reasons.
Yes, it is up to me to decide if someone's criticisms are appropriate, and to speak up if I believe they are not. If anyone here is entitled to an opinion, then everyone here is; and if one person can say what's appropriate, then so can we all.
Yes, it is wrong. Unless you are a psychologist (or other mental health professional), you don't even know what the words mean.
I see it differently. I see those words being used by a common person as a rational explanation of apparently irrational behaviour. And i dont think doing so is either uncommon or unwarranted.
Very few people actually bothered to address the issues raised
Thats because the OP has presented a totally distorted picture of the circumstances and the people involved.
We know tye and demerphq well. They both contribute regularly. We also know intrepid well. He has a tendency to be rude and abusive to people in the CB and for carrying out long term vendettas against users he feels haven't respected him or that he feels have insulted him. For years we have seen the /ignore list on his home node grow, and seen him rant on the subject over and over. For years we have seen his collection of people he hates be documented further and further.
So we have long experience of his claims. The fact that we have rejected them should shine a bigger light on him than on the people who have done the rejection. I think communal reputation is generally well deserved. And i think the fact that the community is rejecting Intrepids claims says it all. They dont feel that he has been wronged, and maybe feel that his claims are excessive and product of a somewhat deranged mind.
But of course, this isn't a rational discussion, is it? It's more of a public free-for-all against someone who, for whatever reason, is unpopular.
Well if it is then its been started by that person himself. And it looks to me like what the OP was trying to do was to get everybody to join in on a public free-for-all against two of our more respected members, with the apparent intention of making them unpopular. That it appears to have had the contrary effect is unsurprising. But what is surprising to me is that you think the public is wrong in reacting this way.
We also know intrepid well. He has a tendency to be rude and abusive to people in the CB and for carrying out long term vendettas against users he feels haven't respected him or that he feels have insulted him. For years we have seen the /ignore list on his home node grow, and seen him rant on the subject over and over. For years we have seen his collection of people he hates be documented further and further.
I'd like to note that Intrepid is perfectly nice to most people, most of the time. Sure, there are lots of easily pushed buttons on the guy and that does mean that strangers occasionally find themselves a target for Intrepid. That's still not most strangers.
There aint nothin in this world thats worth being a snot over. Larry Wall
Makeshifts last the longest.
I was hesitant to reply to this, but I think you deserve a direct indication of how I will respond to various behaviours.
If you don't want me to support you getting permanently banned from PerlMonks, then don't keep doing things which violate clearly stated rules such as inventing new user-names when you are borged and publishing CB logs offsite without permission of those quoted.
If you don't want me to support you getting borged, then don't swear at other monks in the CB. (A part of yesterday's log and something that I've personaly witnessed twice previously and that I see you conveniently omitted from your postings.)
If you don't want me to use the CB to criticize your behaviour, then don't insult and berate newcomers for their lack of knowledge of perl or of PerlMonks and don't publish voluminous put-downs of monks you dislike or ignore.
If you want me to respect you, then do as I have seen you do on many occasions - help people with technical questions, give advice to lovelorn monks, send good wishes to fellow monks in bad health or career binds, share interesting tidbits you've garnered in your studies of world culture, throw a bad pun or bon mot into the conversation at the right time ...
Intrepid, somewhere in there is a guy I like and respect, but if you insist on hiding him, you are the one who will have to live with the consequences.
don't keep doing things which violate clearly stated rules such as inventing new user-names when you are borged andIt's not clear to me that there is such a clearly stated rule.
-Lee
"To be civilized is to deny one's nature."
Is that the only criticism you have of his comments? I gave jZed a ++ for them, because I think he summarized the situation very well, and in a reasonably humane fashion.
There is a clearly stated rule about creating multiple nicks without consulting the powers that be. The rule says that you don't do that. It's pretty bleeping obvious that if one of the gods IMO correctly removed someone's ability to use a site facility for a period of time, and that person then then creates new accounts in order to flout that restriction, then that person has broken a (clearly stated) site rule. Unless, of course, that person also, quite unthinkably, received permission to create new nicks from the same people who banned him
It's pretty bleeping obvious that if one of the gods IMO correctly removed someone's ability to use a site facility for a period of time, and that person then then creates new accounts in order to flout that restriction, then that person has broken a (clearly stated) site rule.This is now a clearly stated site rule: Site Rules Governing User Accounts.
But there was this one where I was overly active, talking about something (which I don't really remember, maybe something YAML related) which sparkled some strong views from many other monks. One of those was Intrepid. He seemed very unreasonable while discussing things and jeffa private messaged me saying that he was a troll and I should ignore him. I didn't actually understand that by ignoring him, he meant /ignoreing him, but it seemed fairly reasonable to just ignore whatever he was saying about that subject.
I think these demonstrations of unreasonable behaviour is what created this "bad aura" around Intrepid. However, I don't really agree with people making a campaign to "silence" him (i.e. everyone should /ignore him). And I don't really know about this "borging" thing, since I wasn't around when the incident happened (although I don't talk much, I usually read the chatterbox).
Either way, there's something here that some people here seems to not quite understand.
PerlMonks isn't merely a web site. PerlMonks is *the* Perl website.
PerlMonks + some selected mailing lists is pretty much the entirePerl community.
If this guy tries to find a job somewhere PerlMonks aware he might even suffer in the RealWorld(tm) from all of this.
acid06
perl -e "print pack('h*', 16369646), scalar reverse $="
PerlMonks + some selected mailing lists is pretty much the entirePerl community.
No. But OK :-)
Either way, there's something here that some people here seems to not quite understand. PerlMonks isn't merely a web site. PerlMonks is *the* Perl website. PerlMonks + some selected mailing lists is pretty much the entirePerl community.
If this guy tries to find a job somewhere PerlMonks aware he might even suffer in the RealWorld(tm) from all of this.
Then he should stop trying to get the rest of the known universe to cap his ass. I don't think his decision to be principled also means he has to be a fuck about it.
Both of the guys you are criticising have made massive contributions to the site. They are the main admins. They are the main developers. Almost every new feature for the past few years has been coded by one or the other. They are both regularly helpful to people in the CB. And I've never seen them say anything like what I've seen you do:
Intrepid: jdporter, you are one of the lowest fuck-faced scumbags I have ever encountered online - your talking-behind-the -back sliminess and putrescent immature arrogance just cause massive retchation
Which was what caused demerphq to borg you the other day. (Funny how you leave that part out of your rant.) I've regularly witnessed you make rude, offensive, or threatening comments in the CB. You've been known to all out attack people in the CB for misunderstanding something you asked, or giving you an answer you dont feel is correct.
I was lurking when much of the recent events happened. Your characteriation of it just doesn't match what I saw. From what I saw you carried a much bigger responsibility for what happened than you are willing to admit. Which in my eyes makes you a liar.
To me the situation is simple, who is more important for the sites wellbeing? Two guys who regularly contribute their time and skills to the good of everybody or a disruptive offensive liar like you?
IMO the answer is clear. If you can't live within the rules then YOU should go away.
If you don't want to be called a troll, then don't make personal hate lists (your ignore lists), logs of "bad" behaviour i.e. chat logs, or large ranting posts like this with no basis and worse, no possible good outcome.
You appear to be suffereing from the exact same things that you accuse demerphq and tye of. Ironicaly I seldom find them on the same side of arguments so it greatly amused me that you put them in the same group. This is no defense of them, but i would think you are going to get negative reactions from anyone you publicly put on your hate list, and in addition to that by putting it down in writing like that you make it obvious to everone that you never intend on making amends in any way so why should they be nice to you?
You do your own brand of name calling in this post and your home node and yet that is the very thing you claim to be fighting agianst, did i miss something?
Violence begets violence, hate begets hate.
___________
Eric Hodges