Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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 ]

merlyn (47)

merlyn
  merlyn@stonehenge.com
http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/
AOL IM: realmerlyn (Add Buddy, Send Message)
Yahoo! ID: realmerlyn (Add User, Send Message)

PAUSE-ID: MERLYN [cpan.org].
See my home page [stonehenge.com].

Journal of merlyn (47)

Friday June 11, 2004
04:37 AM

Not a troll

[ #19193 ]
This is for the number of people at LiveJournal who think that livemerlyn is not me. It is.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • One of the signs of trolling that I've learned to look for (when I have to ban someone from my journal or a community I moderate) is someone who only posts replies to other people and doesn't post anything in their own journal. You're looking awfully suspicious on that account.

    And how do we know you're not some imposter who just hacked Randal's account here? Say something only Randal would know! :)

    • Personally, I find this post compelling (I'm one of the aforementioned folk from LJ). Yes, it's possible that someone hacked the account, but I don't think it likely. Unless I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I think that I'm going to believe that "livemerlyn" on LJ and Randal Schwartz, star of stage, screen, and

      for $ANIMAL ("llama","camel","alpaca","gecko \(the animal, not the rendering engine\)")
      {
        print "$ANIMAL ";
      }

      books are one in (and?) the same.

    • someone who only posts replies to other people and doesn't post anything in their own journal

      Yikes!

      I'll go make an entry right now...
    • As long as you treat that heuristic as suggestive, rather than as conclusive, it has some merit I suppose. It actually discriminates reactive from proactive; you use that to suggest anti-active and there is probably some amount of statistical correlation, but I don't think it is especially huge.