Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

blazar (7356)

  (email not shown publicly)
Yahoo! ID: bik.mido (Add User, Send Message)

Journal of blazar (7356)

Thursday September 13, 2007
05:39 PM

*Plonk*ed by Abigail... :(

[ #34443 ]

Probably by far the least of my problems in life, but not really pleasant either and yet having somehow to do with Perl so perhaps appropriate to this site for once...

I've been plonked by Perl hacker extraordinaire Abigail!

Lately, I reported or literally copied -with proper attributions!- stuff that I regarded as interesting from clpmisc (link @ GG) to PerlMonks and vice-versa. Incidentally, I'm not doing this on a routinely basis or an in an obtrusive way -I plan on doing that whenever I stumble on an interesting thread, which is to say not too often- but while this was well received well in one direction and appearently not bad in the other one, today it was not by Abigail (link @ GG) who wrote:

Is there a point of reposting perlmonks threads to Usenet? People who are interested in perlmonks already read it. People who don't, well, they don't and there's no need to repost for them.

I (IMHO) kindly replied:

I *do* think that there's a point, for people interested in *Perl* who may like one interface and dislike the other one. And I think there's a point reposting stuff from one place to the other if it contributes to Perl knowledge or is otherwise intriguing. For the future I'll stick to include a [PM] "tag" in the subject for those like you who will want to filter such posts out a priori.

But the further followup is was a:



For completeness I'm also reporting my reply to Charlton Wilbur who also supported Abigail's position:

On 13 Sep 2007 11:39:28 -0400, Charlton Wilbur
<> wrote:

>If Perlmonks is lacking in competent and knowledgeable posters, then
>perhaps it's time to reexamine their choice of interfaces.  And if

Well, of course if I see that many people agree with you and Abigail,
then I will stop doing so. Not that I do it *routinely* nor that I've
done that so many times...

However PM is *not* lacking in competent and knowledgeable posters, in
fact did the OP in this particular example receive quite a lot of
*sensible* answers.

Yet the problem seemed interesting enough to be shared: that it was
posted there is somewhat of circumstance. If I had stumbled in it by
randomly browsing the web and still found it interesting, then I would
have posted it here as well.

>they're not so lacking, reposting Perlmonks threads here and clpm
>threads there serves only to annoy.

Well it may be and may not be. I copied there the content of a thread
posted here some months ago (with proper attributions) and at
<> you can read:

: ++ for bringing that here, so I read it :-)
: I didn't know about @CARP_NOT, so I learned something new today.

Also, Uri Guttman and xhoster took a shoot at the actual problem, so
they must have found it interesting.

Honestly, I don't want to bother anyone. Do you think that
occasionally posting here interesting stuff from PM with a suitable
tag in the Subject for you and others to easily filter it out would be
so bad?

(Further reply and discussion ongoing, for the interested.)

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • You said "Well, of course if I see that many people agree with you and Abigail, then I will stop doing so." []. So, I'm showing you that I agree with them. So much for Warnocking this time, which I would have rather done.

    And, you're bending the truth a bit. In the thread you're referencing, you didn't give full attribution. You just posted a link back to Perlmonks without giving any author credit, then copied the entire post. If the author wanted it posted to usenet, he could have done it himself.
  • I don't get what all the fuss is about, but perhaps you were overdoing it a little? Perhaps you should have done what lots of blog posters are doing these days: post a link to the site with a bit of comment of your own. Except, it'd be on usenet, not in a blog.

    Now, it looks a bit, not, it looks a lot like multiposting. Except it's not even your own post.

    It appears it's a fine balance you have to strike.

    • it looks a lot like multiposting. Except it's not even your own post.

      That basically sums up my problems with it. It's alright, I think, if you're like "over on perlmonks someone brought up the following problem which I found interesting ... and here is my extra input and/or questions .... and maybe someone could clarify these things for me or tell me how brilliant I am.".

      As for being plonked by Abigail, pfffft.... I think he just has a personal issue with perlmonks and doesn't want to be reminded it exi