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

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.
  • I wasn't convinced of conspiracy but I'm glad you piped up on the matter.

    It's a pity that you deleted everything as when you say it's not 'representative of who you are' it isn't being completely honest as, well, it is even if most of you choose the quiet passive-aggressive instead of the more overtly aggressive by damning the torpedoes. I often say things I feel could have been better expressed or possibly even better said by someone else but you can't take back words once they have been said...even in a

    • by ct (2477) on 2002.04.02 19:16 (#6565) Homepage Journal
      It's not so much passive aggressive, though there are times when that's the only weapon you can use to get through to certain personality types.

      I'm always willing to engage in real honest DISCOURSE about any subject with anyone. But discourse doesn't exist anymore.

      I guess I just romanticize the concept of human conversation. I think about the letters written between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. I think about the parisian salon. I long for real intelligent discourse.

      I usually shun any message boards or comments that appear to polarize people. This isn't timidity or shyness, it isn't a lack of conviction in my beliefs. It's fatigue. The Internet-fed, SesameStreet-short-attention-span bred denizens of the majority of these venues think that discussion and even good old fashioned arguing is simply taking up a contrary position and holding fast.

      You, of all people, should realize this, as I've watched you argue with the masses at times. There is no point. Nothing can be gained. Nobody is going to change their mind about something based on writings in a weblog.

      My experiences with Simon on IRC taught me one thing. He's not just contrary, he's arrogant. The whole "discussion" we had wasn't about the relative merits of Postgres, it wasn't even about him taking up a contrary position. It was more along the lines of "By not rearranging your schedule to learn Postgres, you are a lesser human being. Your protests to the contrary prove to me that you aren't worthy of conversation." The last time I heard someone spoken to in the manner I was addressed, I'm fairly certain that Anthony Hopkins was playing a butler.

      I'm fully capable of writing flames, of both the obscene diatribe and profanity-free dissertation varieties. But, in the end, what purpose does it serve? Was Simon going to apologize? Doubtful. I watched the IRC channels just after my journal was submitted. Simon's only comment was that he would "Politely decline to comment."

      I should have done the same.

      As for the other 15 entries in my journal, none of those were relevant, most were long ramblings on non-perl issues. I deleted all in a rash act of defiance. I was mad, not at Simon, nor at anyone in particular, but out of some existential fit of frustration. I was making a clean break with the damnable Internet communities which make it so hard to have real rational discussions.

      Of course, that was probably just the NyQuil.

      • well, take my point. No, the world isn't going to change it's mind over a blog or blog comment nor is this a Parisian Salon but there is a purpose for the words if only to serve as a warning to those who follow.

        Perhaps I'm just disappointed at finding the first person to have balls enough to go against the party line, deleting everything and scurrying back under the rock from which you came. I keep hoping more will follow since blind conformists and shills are rife and uninteresting.

        Perl has a long trai