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

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.
  • I didn't know about this, but it's great to see you taking responsibility and apologizing, rather than the other way 'round: seeing people bitch about what someone did and then someone else attacking back and blah blah blah.
  • You were officially warned for what actually? Showing an image of bare breasts? Mentioning Playboy? Not having an image of a man for the women in the audience?

    I wonder what's next. Not inviting Larry to give a keynote because he might mention something that some Muslims or atheists take offence of?

    I bet if you had shown pictures of guns, and talked about screen scraping the NRA website, noone would have complained, and you wouldn't have had a reason to post your note.

    • Showing an image of bare breasts?

      So that is acceptable is it? There is a time and place for everything and showing that at a conference isn't one of them, IMO. Sorry, just call me a prude and be done with it.

    • The official warning was for "inappropriate content". By which they mostly meant the image.

      I don't think it is necesary to apologise merely for causing offense to somebody or some subset of the audience. You will always offend someone no matter what you say.

      And an apology to those people are not necesary.

      However, as I said, for some people it caused more of a problem that just mere offense. And I feel an apology to those people IS required.
    • Showing an image of bare breasts

      No, showing soft-core pornography, which has its time and place; neither of which should occur within a "technical" conference lecture room.

      Mentioning Playboy?

      No. Some people were upset by the mere mention of Playboy but had there been a little more context, and more appropriate images, I don't think that itself would have been a problem.

      Not having an image of a man for the women in the audience?

      The answer isn't "more porn". Balancing it out so that there are equal numbers of naked men as women won't make the people who feel uncomfortable with any porn feel better. It

  • It sounds like a very good talk that caused a scandal because you used a single inapproriate image.

    I don't see any reason not to give the talk again with some toned down images (playboy do after all have acceptable pictures of their playmates as well as the more arty, or exposed).

    It would also be interesting to see how much code-re-use and lessons you could apply to a brand new ACME::Model::Chippendale package, including why it's important to make modules within the same namespace consistent, and why you ma

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;