Sorry
Robin Bank
so stupid and won't ask to be e-mailed answers in the future....
Later,
Robin
******|
------| rb...@csf.edu
******|
Elaine -HappyFunBall- Ashton
>
> Hey all... Sorry about my last posts. I'll think of questions that aren't
> so stupid and won't ask to be e-mailed answers in the future....
No question is stupid per se, but in this group one must do their
homework first. Also when you specifically request to be emailed certain
parties pop a vein, including myself. Join us or don't. Immolate or
don't.
The only stupid question is one that has been asked a billion times and
has been answered equally as many times. If you have an interesting
question, wild horses won't keep the usuals from answering in
completeness, even if you ask for clarification.
e.
After all, the cultivated person's first duty is to
always be prepared to rewrite the encyclopedia. - U. Eco -
Tad McClellan
: Hey all... Sorry about my last posts. I'll think of questions that aren't
: so stupid
The problem is not that the questions were stupid, but rather
that they have already been adequately answered (in the FAQ,
or in recent threads accessable via a Usenet archive such as
www.dejanews.com).
New stuff, even stupid new stuff, is welcomed.
: and won't ask to be e-mailed answers in the future....
It is generally deemed OK to ask for a _copy_ to be emailed
(though many will ignore the request anyway).
Asking for the answer to be emailed (rather than posted and emailed)
denies other members of our community access to the answer. Which
may get some undies in a bundle, as we like to help many at once,
rather than one at a time ;-)
--
Tad McClellan SGML Consulting
ta...@metronet.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
John Porter
>
> New stuff, even stupid new stuff, is welcomed.
Right; like "Why is Perl so much worse than Python?"
--
John "Many Jars" Porter
baby mother hospital scissors creature judgment butcher engineer
Larry Wall
>Tad McClellan wrote:
>>
>> New stuff, even stupid new stuff, is welcomed.
>
>Right; like "Why is Perl so much worse than Python?"
That's easy. Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse.
Larry
Randal Schwartz
Larry> That's easy. Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse.
As I like to put it, "Remember that the P in Perl stands for Practical.
The P in Python doesn't seem to stand for anything."
:-)
--
Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying
Email: <mer...@stonehenge.com> Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger mer...@teleport.com)
Web: <A HREF="http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/">My Home Page!</A>
Quote: "I'm telling you, if I could have five lines in my .sig, I would!" -- me
Lee Brandson
> Robin Bank (rb...@csf.edu) wrote:
>
> : Hey all... Sorry about my last posts. I'll think of questions that aren't
> : so stupid
>
>
> The problem is not that the questions were stupid, but rather
> that they have already been adequately answered (in the FAQ,
> or in recent threads accessable via a Usenet archive such as
> www.dejanews.com).
>
>
> New stuff, even stupid new stuff, is welcomed.
As an occasional watcher of this ng and its predecessor for some two years
now, I would like to ask whether it is strictly necessary to be as rude as
possible when answering (or not answering, as the case may be) a question?
Is this what it takes to be "in the club?" Do you enjoy the unending long
threads of justifications for such rudeness?
Q: Why do universities have both libraries and instructors?
A: Because it is not always sufficient that a given piece of information
be archived somewhere.
Lee Brandson
I R A Aggie
Brandson) wrote:
+ Q: Why do universities have both libraries and instructors?
+
+ A: Because it is not always sufficient that a given piece of information
+ be archived somewhere.
Because both are storehouses of information. The instructor simply
hasn't formalized their information enough to be placed in the library.
But one does not go to one's instructor with a homework problem and
ask them to solve it.
James
Chris Russo
>Q: Why do universities have both libraries and instructors?
>
>A: Because it is not always sufficient that a given piece of information
>be archived somewhere.
Poor analogy. University educations are paid for. As a student, you can
rightfully expect help, since you've shelled out the cash for it.
USENET is cooperative. Respect from question askers (by doing some
legwork) will yield respect from question answerers. Presumption will
yield rudeness.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
Chris Russo
ne...@russo.org
http://www.russo.org
Elaine -HappyFunBall- Ashton
> + Q: Why do universities have both libraries and instructors?
> +
> + A: Because it is not always sufficient that a given piece of information
> + be archived somewhere.
>
> Because both are storehouses of information. The instructor simply
> hasn't formalized their information enough to be placed in the library.
Both are valuable _resources_ for the enquiring mind. Libraries are the
most amazing places, filled with so many wonderful things including the
librarians. CPAN is the library of Perl.
John Porter
>
> Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse.
Meaning "wanted it more badly", I take it?
Michael J Gebis
}In article <rlb-151098...@204.112.166.151>, r...@intrinsix.ca (Lee
}+ Q: Why do universities have both libraries and instructors?
}+ A: Because it is not always sufficient that a given piece of information
}+ be archived somewhere.
}Because both are storehouses of information. The instructor simply
}hasn't formalized their information enough to be placed in the library.
}But one does not go to one's instructor with a homework problem and
}ask them to solve it.
Sure you do. And it's the instructor's job to solve the problem
_with_ the student, instead of _for_ the student. This is a subtle
difference that often gets missed in this group, by both students and
teachers.
--
Mike Gebis ge...@ecn.purdue.edu mge...@eternal.net
Will
Lee Brandson wrote in message ...
>now, I would like to ask whether it is strictly necessary to be as rude as
>possible when answering (or not answering, as the case may be) a question?
>Is this what it takes to be "in the club?" Do you enjoy the unending long
>threads of justifications for such rudeness?
Bravo! My recent post was met with this type of rudeness and sarcasm. Just
because I'm having trouble with my transition from one language to another,
some people assume that I haven't read the documentation, or I'm just
stupid. These people felt compelled to reply to my post with rude sarcastic
answers that basically said RTFM. These people are obviously "in the club".
-- Will
wcoarse...@gate.net
(Please remove the NOSPAM)
I R A Aggie
(Michael J Gebis) wrote:
+ Sure you do. And it's the instructor's job to solve the problem
+ _with_ the student, instead of _for_ the student. This is a subtle
+ difference that often gets missed in this group, by both students and
+ teachers.
That's right. But there's another subtle little difference often over
looked.
The instructor gets paid for their time...
James
Adam Turoff
>Larry Wall wrote:
>>
>> Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse.
>
>Meaning "wanted it more badly", I take it?
Not necessarily. Larry's statement works on both levels.
People found it useful to have s/foo/bar/; in the middle of a line
rather than using regsub('foo', 'bar'). The first line always looks
intuitive to a regex jockey.
At least that's my reading...
Z.
Michael J Gebis
Of course. Nobody has the right to demand help on this group. If you
think that, you're going to be a bad student.
On the other hand, merely responding to a query doesn't automatically
qualify as helpful. If you think that, you're going to be a bad
teacher.
I R A Aggie
(Michael J Gebis) wrote:
+ On the other hand, merely responding to a query doesn't automatically
+ qualify as helpful.
Well, it does cut off the complaint that "no one responded to my post".
James
Larry Wall
>Larry Wall wrote:
>>
>> Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse.
>
>Meaning "wanted it more badly", I take it?
I intended you to take it however you like. :-)
Larry
Tad McClellan
: Lee Brandson wrote in message ...
: >In article <ona207...@flash.net>, ta...@flash.net (Tad McClellan)
: wrote:
I did not write any of the below.
The attribution is in error.
: >As an occasional watcher of this ng and its predecessor for some two years
: >now, I would like to ask whether it is strictly necessary to be as rude as
: >possible when answering (or not answering, as the case may be) a question?
: >Is this what it takes to be "in the club?" Do you enjoy the unending long
: >threads of justifications for such rudeness?
Lee.L...@bigfoot.com
Is it ethical for a linguist to make a play on words?
I read it as people wanted Perl to be "worse" because it makes
it more useful.
--
// Lee.L...@Bigfoot.com
// Be nice. It isn't that hard to do and it
// makes people happy.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ronald J Kimball
Lee Brandson <r...@intrinsix.ca> wrote:
> As an occasional watcher of this ng and its predecessor for some two years
> now, I would like to ask whether it is strictly necessary to be as rude as
> possible when answering (or not answering, as the case may be) a question?
> Is this what it takes to be "in the club?
If you were more than an "occasional" watcher of this ng and its
predecessor, then you would know that this very question has been asked
numerous times. No, it's not in the FAQ. That's probably because there
is no agreed upon answer; instead it just leads to another drawn-out
debate between people who are unlikely to be convinced to change their
own opinion on the matter.
> Do you enjoy the unending long threads of justifications for such rudeness?
Oh, apparently you do know. No, I don't enjoy the threads. And thank
you *so much* for starting yet one more!
--
_ / ' _ / - aka - r...@coos.dartmouth.edu
( /)//)//)(//)/( Ronald J Kimball chip...@m-net.arbornet.org
/ http://www.ziplink.net/~rjk/
"It's funny 'cause it's true ... and vice versa."
Craig Berry
: In article <362627ED...@min.net>, John Porter <jdpo...@min.net> wrote:
: >Larry Wall wrote:
: >>
: >> Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse.
: >
: >Meaning "wanted it more badly", I take it?
:
: I intended you to take it however you like. :-)
Ah. "There's more than one way to parse it," too. :) Fruit flies like a
banana...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Craig Berry - cbe...@cinenet.net
--*-- Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| "Ripple in still water, when there is no pebble tossed,
nor wind to blow..."
Eric Bohlman
: In article <362627ED...@min.net>, John Porter <jdpo...@min.net> wrote:
: >Larry Wall wrote:
: >>
: >> Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse.
: >
: >Meaning "wanted it more badly", I take it?
: I intended you to take it however you like. :-)
A sportscaster once commented about a football player who was playing
without having adequately recovered from an injury: "He wants to play in
this game in the worst way possible, and that's exactly what he's doing."
Lee Brandson
r...@coos.dartmouth.edu (Ronald J Kimball) wrote:
> [posted and mailed]
Why? Posting was sufficient.
> Lee Brandson <r...@intrinsix.ca> wrote:
>
> > As an occasional watcher of this ng and its predecessor for some two years
> > now, I would like to ask whether it is strictly necessary to be as rude as
> > possible when answering (or not answering, as the case may be) a question?
> > Is this what it takes to be "in the club?
>
> If you were more than an "occasional" watcher of this ng and its
> predecessor, then you would know that this very question has been asked
> numerous times. No, it's not in the FAQ. That's probably because there
> is no agreed upon answer; instead it just leads to another drawn-out
> debate between people who are unlikely to be convinced to change their
> own opinion on the matter.
The question was not the topic of my comment. I was addressing the nature
of the reply. More generally, I was addressing the general tone of replies
throughout this ng. This is not say that all replies are rude, dismissive,
insulting, quarrelsome... but opportunities for such replies are seldom
overlooked.
> > Do you enjoy the unending long threads of justifications for such rudeness?
>
> Oh, apparently you do know. No, I don't enjoy the threads. And thank
> you *so much* for starting yet one more!
I did not start it. I merely jumped in to suggest that a polite reply
would have all of the benefits and none of the unfortunate side effects of
a rude reply.
Lee Brandson
Matt Curtin
> I intended you to take it however you like. :-)
Even Larry's English is late-typing. :-)
You gotta love it.
--
Matt Curtin cmcu...@interhack.net http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/
Bart Lateur
>As an occasional watcher of this ng and its predecessor for some two years
>now, I would like to ask whether it is strictly necessary to be as rude as
>possible when answering (or not answering, as the case may be) a question?
>Is this what it takes to be "in the club?"
To be "in the club", you only have to post frequent enough. In that
case, you can get away with just about anything.
That smells like dual standards. I hate that.
Bart.
Uri Guttman
BL> Lee Brandson wrote:
>> As an occasional watcher of this ng and its predecessor for some two years
>> now, I would like to ask whether it is strictly necessary to be as rude as
>> possible when answering (or not answering, as the case may be) a question?
>> Is this what it takes to be "in the club?"
BL> To be "in the club", you only have to post frequent enough. In that
BL> case, you can get away with just about anything.
don't you really mean "frequently enough with useful answers and
comments"? mode of the "rude" types (myself included) post plenty of
quality answers and comments to requests we deem worthy (you are not
worthy! you are not worthy! :-) the "rudeness" comes from seeing FAQ and
poor subject lines and stuff like "can you find or write me this script
in 5 minutes for no pay?" there is no "club" just various interested
hackers who have earned some modicum of respect as knowing soemthing
about perl. there are various levels of these hackers and we all have
made mistakes and we usually own up to them and not stand on some high
reese horse. but we are human too with all those wonderful emotions and
stuff. we get angry at newbies who don't do any homework first, laugh at
each other mistakes, try to top one another with perl tricks, solutions,
quips, quote, bon mots, insults, etc. like any group of computer
geeks. you should see what it is like at a perl mongers meeting or at the
perl conference!
this is usenet. it has always been this way and no massive influx of
newbies will change it. there won't ever be a newbie group here (or
anywhere else) because of the simple fact that experience hackers won't
want to be there and newbies won't want answers from other newbies. so
if the come here and expect to get answers, we have a standard which
we apply to them. they have to do some homework first, think about their
question carefully, show some real code or a real problem, use a good
subject, and try out the answers before coming back with more
questions. saying rtfm or rtfaq is a good answer for many things as it
will help the newbie in the long run and lower the noise level here.
just another rude perl hacker,
uri
--
Uri Guttman ----------------- SYStems ARCHitecture and Software Engineering
Perl Hacker for Hire ---------------------- Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
u...@sysarch.com ------------------------------------ http://www.sysarch.com
The Best Search Engine on the Net ------------- http://www.northernlight.com
Elaine -HappyFunBall- Ashton
> don't you really mean "frequently enough with useful answers and
> comments"? mode of the "rude" types (myself included) post plenty of
> quality answers and comments to requests we deem worthy (you are not
> worthy! you are not worthy! :-) the "rudeness" comes from seeing FAQ and
> poor subject lines and stuff like "can you find or write me this script
> in 5 minutes for no pay?" there is no "club" just various interested
> hackers who have earned some modicum of respect as knowing soemthing
> about perl. there are various levels of these hackers and we all have
> made mistakes and we usually own up to them and not stand on some high
> reese horse. but we are human too with all those wonderful emotions and
> stuff. we get angry at newbies who don't do any homework first, laugh at
> each other mistakes, try to top one another with perl tricks, solutions,
> quips, quote, bon mots, insults, etc. like any group of computer
> geeks. you should see what it is like at a perl mongers meeting or at the
> perl conference!
Hey, if I can be the only chick among 40+ crusty old bastards like
yourself at a bar and hold my own, anyone can suck it up and deal. There
is no club per se, at least not like some of the WME clubs of old men
drinking scotch that I've been in. Nay, this is just a bunch of geeks
hangin' out, talking turf. And, yes, we are all so human some days it
hurts. We are 3d, usenet is 2d, if someone takes it too personally, then
someone needs to go out and get a good beer or scotch and contemplate
the meaning of life.
> this is usenet. it has always been this way and no massive influx of
> newbies will change it. there won't ever be a newbie group here (or
Newbies won't change what has been the same for at least 10 years, to
quote a favourite song of mine 'same as it ever was'. Newbies aren't
always so, and so the world turns and so time passes. Life, you're
soaking in it.
> just another rude perl hacker,
Nay, just abrasive at times...then again, so am I. :) Rude implies
intent to hurt of offend...I don't think anyone here really means to do
so.
Daniel Grisinger
< snip a lot of stuff that I agree with >
> just another rude perl hacker,
I believe they call it the `campaign for grumpiness where
grumpiness is due' over on comp.lang.c.
dgris
--
Daniel Grisinger dg...@perrin.dimensional.com
perl -Mre=eval -e'$_=shift;;@[=split//;;$,=qq;\n;;;print m;(.{$-}(?{$-++}));,q;;while$-<=@[;;' 'Just Another Perl Hacker'
Ronald J Kimball
> In article <1dgyuxt.1s9...@bos-ip-1-106.ziplink.net>,
> r...@coos.dartmouth.edu (Ronald J Kimball) wrote:
>
> > [posted and mailed]
>
> Why? Posting was sufficient.
Because I wanted to make sure you read it, of course.
I did not CC this one. I hope you read it anyway.
> > Lee Brandson <r...@intrinsix.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > As an occasional watcher of this ng and its predecessor for some two years
> > > now, I would like to ask whether it is strictly necessary to be as rude as
> > > possible when answering (or not answering, as the case may be) a question?
> > > Is this what it takes to be "in the club?
> >
> > If you were more than an "occasional" watcher of this ng and its
> > predecessor, then you would know that this very question has been asked
> > numerous times. No, it's not in the FAQ. That's probably because there
> > is no agreed upon answer; instead it just leads to another drawn-out
> > debate between people who are unlikely to be convinced to change their
> > own opinion on the matter.
>
> The question was not the topic of my comment. I was addressing the nature
> of the reply. More generally, I was addressing the general tone of replies
> throughout this ng. This is not say that all replies are rude, dismissive,
> insulting, quarrelsome... but opportunities for such replies are seldom
> overlooked.
You completely misunderstood. I was referring to *your* question.
[In fact, I don't see any other questions asked in the thread leading up
to your post. What else could I have been referring to? :-) ]
"As an occasional watcher of this ng and its predecessor for some two
years now, I would like to ask whether it is strictly necessary to be as
rude as possible when answering (or not answering, as the case may be) a
question? Is this what it takes to be 'in the club'?"
That question has been asked numerous times. No, it's not in the FAQ.
That's probably because there is no agreed upon answer; instead it just
leads to another drawn-out debate between people who are unlikely to be
convinced to change their own opinion on the matter.
> > > Do you enjoy the unending long threads of justifications for such
> > > rudeness?
> >
> > Oh, apparently you do know. No, I don't enjoy the threads. And thank
> > you *so much* for starting yet one more!
>
> I did not start it. I merely jumped in to suggest that a polite reply
> would have all of the benefits and none of the unfortunate side effects of
> a rude reply.
Yes, you did start the thread. Your post is the one which started the
justification for such rudeness. [1]
Once again, thank you *so much*.
[1] I'm sure you'll try to say that you didn't. To save you the
trouble, please refer to dejanews and answer the following questions:
How many posts justifying rudeness are sent in response to posts asking
FAQs?
How many posts justifying rudeness are sent in response to rude replies
to FAQs?
How many posts justifying rudeness are sent in response to posts
condemning rude replies?
Ben Coleman
>Is it ethical for a linguist to make a play on words?
Why not? After all, who's better qualified?
At least he's not pulling SKB's cross-discipline word plays.
Ben
--
Ben Coleman
Senior Systems Analyst
TermNet Merchant Services, Inc.
Atlanta, GA
dB
"Are too!!"
"Am not!!"
"Are too!!"
No more need be said - dB