newbie...XML::Parser to extract data?
John Smith
instances a tag occurs in an XML file? I'm reading the document by Clark
Cooper for the module, but I'm afraid I can't figure out if I could use this
to
simply count the number of occurrences for a certain tag (don't know enough
about Perl).
I'm looking to do something like this (this is in very ugly pseudocode):
$p1 = new XML::Parser(some method that looks for a certain tag);
for (i = 0; i <= $p1 ; i++)
$total += i;
print "the amount of times <some_tag> occurred is " $total \n";
Would the parser be able to do something like this?
Godzilla!
(snipped)
> What exactly does XML::Parser do?
Have you considered reading this module's documentation?
http://wwwx.netheaven.com/~coopercc/xmlparser/intro.html
Godzilla!
John Smith
> > What exactly does XML::Parser do?
>
>
> Have you considered reading this module's documentation?
...I have a printed copy right in front of me...did you read the
rest of my post?
tells
> print "the amount of times <some_tag> occurred is " $total \n";
>
> Would the parser be able to do something like this?
Weeeell... for that I'd use a normal while-loop reading the file line
by line... mucher easier... and if you know that there's nothing funny
going on the file that'll be enough, or you could add whatever's needed
to "match around" that funny stuff...
/t
Godzilla!
> Godzilla! wrote:
> > > What exactly does XML::Parser do?
> > Have you considered reading this module's documentation?
> ...I have a printed copy right in front of me
I bet you are married to Pocahontas, delightful
daughter of Powhatan, as well. Surely you live
in a little Pink House, with Pocahontas, near
Jamestown.
Ain't that America something to see!
* performs a series of nude cartwheels *
I doubt her talent will be exhibited at Olympic Games.
> ...did you read the rest of my post?
Within the remainder of your article, I read
nothing worthy of response.
Godzilla!
--
#!perl
$input = "Can you guess? <Godzilla Rocks And Rolls!> Good guess!
<She Rocks My Socks Off!> Oh yeah! <Godzilla Rocks And Rolls!>
I love rock and roll! Rock me baby! <Godzilla Rocks
And Rolls!>Godzilla is the best Perl programmer around here!
<She Rocks My Socks Off!>Whooooooo! Wheeeeee! Godzilla! <God
zilla Rocks And Rolls!>";
$input =~ tr/\n//d;
$count = $input =~ s/<Godzilla Rocks And Rolls!>//g;
print "Count: $count";
print "\n\n";
$input = "Can you guess? <Godzilla Rocks And Rolls!> Good guess!
<She Rocks My Socks Off!> Oh yeah! <Godzilla Rocks And Rolls!>
I love rock and roll! Rock me baby! <Godzilla Rocks
And Rolls!>Godzilla is the best Perl programmer around here!
<She Rocks My Socks Off!>Whooooooo! Wheeeeee! Godzilla! <God
zilla Rocks And Rolls!>";
$input =~ tr/\n//d;
do
{
$position = index ($input, "<Godzilla Rocks And Rolls!>", $position);
if (index ($input, "<Godzilla Rocks And Rolls!>", $position) > -1)
{ $counter++; $position += 27; }
}
until ($position == rindex ($input, "<Godzilla Rocks And Rolls!>") + 27);
print "Count: $counter";
Martien Verbruggen
Godzilla! <godz...@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>
>> Godzilla! wrote:
>
>> > > What exactly does XML::Parser do?
>
>> > Have you considered reading this module's documentation?
>
>> ...I have a printed copy right in front of me
>
> I bet you are married to Pocahontas, delightful
Do not pay any attention to what Godzilla says. It is a troll, and has
no decent working knowledge of Perl or programming in general. Search
groups.google.com to see a history of its posts and replies to these
posts.
Martien
--
|
Martien Verbruggen | Useful Statistic: 75% of the people make up
| 3/4 of the population.
|
GD
> Do not pay any attention to what Godzilla says. It is a troll, and has
> no decent working knowledge of Perl or programming in general. Search
> groups.google.com to see a history of its posts and replies to these
> posts.
...I will...thanks
GD
> > print "the amount of times <some_tag> occurred is " $total \n";
> >
> > Would the parser be able to do something like this?
>
> Weeeell... for that I'd use a normal while-loop reading the file line
> by line... mucher easier...
Yes...I thought about that. But I'm kind of worried that it will take a
really long time to do it that way, because the file is BIG (16 meg).
I also am looking to find more than one tag, so it will probably take
minutes
to do something like that, wouldn't it?
> and if you know that there's nothing funny
> going on the file that'll be enough, or you could add whatever's needed
> to "match around" that funny stuff...
By "funny", do you mean stuff like whitespace?
Sean Hamilton
This should probably be auto-posted.
sh
Bart Lateur
>> Do not pay any attention to what Godzilla says. It is a troll, and has
>
>This should probably be auto-posted.
No... I prefer a human inspecting what Godzilla says, and respond
accordingly. Responding blindly to her posts would have as a result that
even a decent post from her would get this treatment, and that would
harm the criticisers' credibility.
I bet this phrase isn't typed in manually, anyway.
--
Bart.
Benjamin Goldberg
>
> What exactly does XML::Parser do?
It uses expat to parse XML.
> Can you use it to count the number of
> instances a tag occurs in an XML file?
Yes.
> I'm reading the document by Clark Cooper for the module, but I'm
> afraid I can't figure out if I could use this to simply count the
> number of occurrences for a certain tag (don't know enough about
> Perl).
You can.
> I'm looking to do something like this (this is in very ugly
> pseudocode):
>
> $p1 = new XML::Parser(some method that looks for a certain tag);
> for (i = 0; i <= $p1 ; i++)
> $total += i;
> print "the amount of times <some_tag> occurred is " $total \n";
>
> Would the parser be able to do something like this?
Well, not *directly*, but you can write your own sub which checks for
the <some_tag> :
my $count = 0;
my $p = XML::Parser->new(Handlers=>{Start=>sub{
++$count if lc($_[1]) eq "some_tag"
}});
$p->parsefile("file");
print "the amount of times <some_tag> occurred is $total\n";
--
print reverse( ",rekcah", " lreP", " rehtona", " tsuJ" )."\n";
tells
> tells wrote:
>
> > > print "the amount of times <some_tag> occurred is " $total \n";
> > >
> > > Would the parser be able to do something like this?
> >
> > Weeeell... for that I'd use a normal while-loop reading the file line
> > by line... mucher easier...
>
> Yes...I thought about that. But I'm kind of worried that it will take a
> really long time to do it that way, because the file is BIG (16 meg). I
> also am looking to find more than one tag, so it will probably take
> minutes to do something like that, wouldn't it?
To use something that answers almost all poker-related question: It
depends.
If this is something that a lot of people will do at the same time,
then yes, it will take a long(ish) time and be slower in pure perl than
if you get some optimized C-code; but if it's something you need done
once every now and then and run it on your own computer... then it won't
really matter.
Try the code and see what happens, I mean, it doesn't take that long to
write and you can stop the process if it seems to mess things up.
To compare, this code (actually the whole program, but this ought to be
the heavy part) on an old computer (perl 5.005_03 built for
i386-freebsd) takes less than 3 (on the wall) seconds to complete on a
2MB-file:
$/ = "\n%\n"; rand($.) < 1 and chomp($l = $_) and ($i = $.) while <EPI>;
> > and if you know that there's nothing funny
> > going on the file that'll be enough, or you could add whatever's needed
> > to "match around" that funny stuff...
>
> By "funny", do you mean stuff like whitespace?
Oh, I don't know, people seem to be able to come up with all kinds of
strange things when they really feel like it.
/t
John Callender
> Do not pay any attention to what Godzilla says. It is a troll, and has
> no decent working knowledge of Perl or programming in general.
I'm not defending Godzilla, or the provision of bad advice to those
insufficiently clued to separate wheat from chaff, but it seems to me
that the attempt to pigeonhole Godzilla into the category of "troll"
is at least somewhat misguided. While there can be no doubt that she
exhibits many troll-like characteristics, to describe her as being
nothing more than a troll strays a bit from the truth. As with Larry's
comments that Perl is a mess in part because the reality it is
designed to map onto is also a mess, when devising a taxonomy of
annoying participants in c.l.p.m., I think we need a little more
specificity, and hence messiness, than can be achieved by lumping her
in with the classic "Cat goes for my eyes!!" variety of troll.
For example, while she does push long-time participants' buttons in a
manner that seems pretty definitely intended to provoke annoyed
responses, and seems to get a certain amount of pleasure from
eliciting those responses, she also seems to be trying, within the
limits of her abilities, to help those less knowledgeable than
herself. Now, the fact that she quite clearly falls way short of the
level of expertise that would justify her assumption of that role, at
least in the context of the large number of more expert experts
hereabouts, is certainly a valid criticism. But it's not the same
thing as saying she's intentionally assuming a false persona just to
get a rise out of people, which is what I've always understood trolls
to do.
From my perspective, dismissing her as a troll obscures an underlying
reality: that Perl's ease of use in the hands of the untrained, and
the explosive rise in its popularity among Web developers, has
broadened the base of participants in the Perl community well beyond
the ranks of professional programmers and rational, sensible aspirants
to that status. We also have a continual influx of extremely raw
newbies, along with the occasional loon like Godzilla.
I agree that the way she skates off into delusional rants instead of
acknowledging the limits of her expertise probably does some harm to
the ignorant who take her advice at face value. But I believe there is
a level on which she really is trying to help others, in particular
those lowest-rung newbies who sometimes get dismissive treatment from
a smallish subset of the real experts around here. I realize that her
efforts end up being pretty thoroughly sabotaged by the emotional
baggage she carries, and I can't really dispute that the most
effective way to deal with her probably is more or less identical to
the way one would deal with a merely malicious, rather than at least
somewhat well-intentioned, troll. But I still think that to the extent
the community is going to talk about her, and discuss her nature and
motivations, it's worth being a little more specific about what it is
that she appears to be doing.
--
John Callender
j...@west.net
http://www.lies.com/jbc/
Godzilla!
> Martien Verbruggen wrote:
(perhaps snipped)
Clearly you are another proud graduate of the
Sears, Roebuck & Co. Academy Of Language Arts.
pfffttt... you boys are mere mental midgets.
Godzilla!
Eric Bohlman
> Well, not *directly*, but you can write your own sub which checks for
> the <some_tag> :
> my $count = 0;
> my $p = XML::Parser->new(Handlers=>{Start=>sub{
> ++$count if lc($_[1]) eq "some_tag"
> }});
> $p->parsefile("file");
> print "the amount of times <some_tag> occurred is $total\n";
Ditch the lc(); case is significant in XML element type names.
Randal L. Schwartz
John> I'm not defending Godzilla, or the provision of bad advice to those
John> insufficiently clued to separate wheat from chaff, but it seems to me
John> that the attempt to pigeonhole Godzilla into the category of "troll"
John> is at least somewhat misguided.
I second that. As far off base as Kira's advise has been from time to
time, she's obviously a real human being who is learning Perl, and has
changed the style and content of answers over the years. She is not a
"troll", whose sole purpose would be to disrupt the group. She thinks
she knows more than she does, and that's her tragic flaw. (I can
appreciate that: there are times when I think I know more than I
do. :) But I've noticed in at least a few areas that while she
originally rebels against anyone purporting a view opposed to her, her
posts about six months later look suspiciously like the corrected
view. :)
So, while you may think attempts to correct Kira go unnoticed, I've
noticed that she actually notices. Please keep doing so. It
frustrates me that she's chosen to get her education in such a public
distracting way, but hey, we all gotta learn somehow.
I'd hope that you "Godzilla is a troll" posters would be a bit more
accurate. Kira is no troll. Kira is just a junior programmer
pretending to be a senior programmer, with all the trappings of such.
Why she's doing it, I don't care. But yes, her incorrect answers must
be corrected, and no, it's not futile. She *is* learning.
print "Just another Perl hacker,"
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<mer...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Godzilla!
> >>>>> John Callender wrote:
> John> I'm not defending Godzilla, or the provision of bad advice to those
> John> insufficiently clued to separate wheat from chaff, but it seems to me
> John> that the attempt to pigeonhole Godzilla into the category of "troll"
> John> is at least somewhat misguided.
> I second that.
> As far off base as Kira's advise has been from time to
> time, she's obviously a real human being who is learning Perl,
> and has changed the style and content of answers over the years.
All of moderate intelligent participating within this newsgroup
learn and develop new techniques over time. This is inherent.
In this aspect, I am no different than you or others. All
exhibit this phenomena.
Historically, I am the only one to challenge long standing
Perl 5 Cargo Cult code by submitting better more efficient
code and, in many cases, such as this recent idiocy of a FAQ
regarding parsing numbers, in many cases I submit code which
actually work where Perl 5 Cargo Cult code fails miserably.
My corrections of Perl 5 Cargo Cult code and methodologies
embarrass regulars, bruise their fragile egos and, in turn,
they post blatant troll articles. Only intent regulars here
have is to masturbate their egos at the expense of others
and to spread discontent and hatred, whenever possible.
> She is not a "troll",
> So, while you may think attempts to correct Kira go unnoticed, I've
> noticed that she actually notices. Please keep doing so.
These corrections you speak of, are virtually always content of
Ad Hominem and blatant stupidity. Returning to my recent example,
all whom resonded to my FAQ critique about parsing numbers,
idiotically claimed a whole number is a decimal number and
claimed a whole number is a c float number.
This is not a correction of my thoughts. This is blatant stupidity.
One of those whom responded, is a Perl FAQ maintainer. This does
reflect upon the relative intelligence of those developing Perl.
This is a very poor reflection.
Primary level school students know the difference between
a whole number and a decimal number. These are children in
the seven to ten year old range exhibiting more intellectual
capacity than most regulars here, including this pompous
Perl FAQ maintainer.
These recent events, this recent stupidity here, well exemplifies
a general theme for this group. This theme is regulars post a lot
of mule manure with a believe others will not notice their idiocy.
Perhaps it is regulars here are so ignorant, they are incapable
of recognizing how ignorant are they.
These "corrections" you speak of, are almost always incorrect,
almost always deceptive, almost always poorly veiled trolls.
I take your "notice" of intelligent articles. I rarely take
notice of articles posted here.
> I'd hope that you "Godzilla is a troll" posters would be a bit more
> accurate. Kira is no troll.
Randal, do you think it hypocritical, until now, none have expressed
concerns about those spamming this group daily with these hateful
and idiotic "Godzilla is troll" articles?
Surely you have noticed Randal, those whom write decent articles,
those whom resond with simple courtesy, those whom conduct themselves
in an intelligent manner, are afforded the same in return, by me.
I am sure you have also noticed, these type of expected articles,
are a rare exception within this group, being populated by trolls.
I am equally sure you have not noticed "John Callender" is a
well known troll whose article, to which you are responding,
is an obvious hateful troll article, a typically poorly
written troll article at that.
Your truthful statements about my not being a troll, are appreciated.
Clearly, you personally, have a bit of decency about you and, a bit
of intelligence.
Godzilla!
Godzilla!
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > >>>>> John Callender wrote:
(snipped)
> a general theme for this group. This theme is regulars post a lot
> of mule manure with a believe others will not notice their idiocy.
That should be "belief" I do believe.
Godzilla!
Godzilla!
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > >>>>> John Callender wrote:
(snipped)
> These "corrections" you speak of, are almost always incorrect,
> almost always deceptive, almost always poorly veiled trolls.
Well Randal, as you can see, it took less than half a day
to verify what I say, as a truism, with no prompting on
my part.
Again, your comments about my not being a troll,
are appreciated. It is both brave and responsible
of you, to take an unpopular stance.
You didn't have to post your article, this I know.
Godzilla!
Martien Verbruggen
Godzilla! <godz...@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote:
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>
>> >>>>> John Callender wrote:
>
>> John> I'm not defending Godzilla, or the provision of bad advice to those
>> John> insufficiently clued to separate wheat from chaff, but it seems to me
>> John> that the attempt to pigeonhole Godzilla into the category of "troll"
>> John> is at least somewhat misguided.
>
>> She is not a "troll",
Maybe you should read the way Godzilla responds to posts again, even
ones that are made in a polite way. As soon as one does not entirely
agree with Godzilla's posts, or points out a single flaw in any of
them, however politely this is done, an aggressive, and most often
abusive response comes back. Godzilla's incessant comments about 'Perl
5 cargo cult programming' are also nothing else than trolling.
Addressing many people by the same name of 'Frank' is also a clear
sign of trolling behaviour.
I'm sorry, Randal, but Godzilla is a troll.
>> So, while you may think attempts to correct Kira go unnoticed, I've
>> noticed that she actually notices. Please keep doing so.
If Godzilla accepted comments a little bit earlier than 6 months after
thay are made, then maybe people wouldn't be so irritated by the
behaviour displayed. Instead, Godzilla defends untenable positions
with ever increasing vehemence, abuse and tenacity, in threads that
quickly become really disruptive. The fact that Godzilla's position
changes quite some time later only shows that there is a (maybe slow)
capacity for learning there. So why the initial filthy fighting?
This is a clear sign of trolling behaviour.
> These corrections you speak of, are virtually always content of
> Ad Hominem and blatant stupidity. Returning to my recent example,
Please read the first few threads you got involved in on this group,
and then talk again about blatant stupidity and Ad Hominem attacks.
Read your responses to innocent new posters to this group, in recent
times, and then read the paragraph, quoted above, again.
> These "corrections" you speak of, are almost always incorrect,
> almost always deceptive, almost always poorly veiled trolls.
Almost always correct, never intentionally deceptive, never trolls. If
you took the time to explain clearly and without resorting to abuse
why you believe your position is the correct one, then people would
listen. Instead you start calling everyone 'Frank', go off on paranoid
rants, and talk about blue monkeys flying out of your various
orifices. As long as you behave like that, and as long as you keep
spreaing FUD and misinformation, people will have a problem with you,
and every article in which you do so 9or almost every article) will
contain followups warning the unsispecting reader about your history
here.
> I take your "notice" of intelligent articles. I rarely take
> notice of articles posted here.
Yep. We have noticed. Maybe you should change that a bit, and start
reading and participating in the group, instead of being a nuisance.
Change your tone, and most of the problem goes away.
>> I'd hope that you "Godzilla is a troll" posters would be a bit more
>> accurate. Kira is no troll.
Godzilla is a troll, Randal, and I'm surprised that you don't see it.
Godzilla may not be deliberately spreading misinformation, but the
words and phrases used in those posts are most definitely deliberatly
inflammatory. Hallmark of a troll.
> Randal, do you think it hypocritical, until now, none have expressed
> concerns about those spamming this group daily with these hateful
> and idiotic "Godzilla is troll" articles?
Have you noticed that you only get followups with that message to
posts that are unnecessarily abusive, spread FUD or are wrong?
> Surely you have noticed Randal, those whom write decent articles,
> those whom resond with simple courtesy, those whom conduct themselves
> in an intelligent manner, are afforded the same in return, by me.
Really? Could you please go to groups.google.com and read a few of the
earlier threads you were involved in. I remember one about
'associative arrays' in which several people pointed out politely that
what you called an associative array was not what was called an
associative array in Perl. Your responses to those posts were all but
polite. And this is more rule than exception.
> I am sure you have also noticed, these type of expected articles,
> are a rare exception within this group, being populated by trolls.
>
> I am equally sure you have not noticed "John Callender" is a
> well known troll whose article, to which you are responding,
> is an obvious hateful troll article, a typically poorly
> written troll article at that.
And this sort of behaviour isn't going to help you. John Callender was
actually trying to defend you, and this is what you do in response?
And this is typical. People have been trying to correct
misunderstandings you obviously have, and get abused by you for it.
Once you understand that it's normal, and perfectly ok to be corrected
on Usenet, you'll fit in a lot better.
Once you have learned to argue a point rationally, and without the
rants about conspiracies, Frank, Perl 5 cargo cult and blue monkeys,
people will stop seeing you as a troll.
Martien
--
|
Martien Verbruggen | Think of the average person. Half of the
Trading Post Australia | people out there are dumber.
|
Bernard El-Hagin
This is the first time I have ever doubted any words you've ever
authored, Randal, and I'm very disappointed that someone who carries
so much authority around here and in the Perl community gives that
monstrous parody of a programmer the go-ahead to keep on acting the
way it's acting. Because, in effect, that's what your words are doing.
Who is going to question Randal Schwartz, after all? If you still
doubt that it's a troll please have a look at the "regex shortcut?"
thread of yesterday.
Cheers,
Bernard
--
echo 42|perl -pe '$#="Just another Perl hacker,"'
Godzilla!
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
(snipped)
> > She is not a "troll"
> This is the first time I have ever doubted any words you've ever
> authored, Randal, and I'm very disappointed
Leave Randal out of this.
His opinions may be right. His opinions may be wrong.
In reality, his opinions lie somewhere between right
and wrong being personal perspective.
Nonetheless, his opinions where expressed in my own
fashion, firm but fair. He addressed me with respect
which carries far more weight than does his degree
of right or wrong.
All participating in USENET, engage in activities
which are borderline trolling. All USENET participants
engage in activities, periodically, which could be
labeled trolling. All are subject to our frailties;
we are human behaving in typical human fashions.
Nonetheless, there is only one true troll here, you Frank.
Godzilla!
Randal L. Schwartz
>> She is not a "troll"
Bernard> This is the first time I have ever doubted any words you've ever
Bernard> authored, Randal, and I'm very disappointed that someone who carries
Bernard> so much authority around here and in the Perl community gives that
Bernard> monstrous parody of a programmer the go-ahead to keep on acting the
Bernard> way it's acting. Because, in effect, that's what your words are doing.
Bernard> Who is going to question Randal Schwartz, after all? If you still
Bernard> doubt that it's a troll please have a look at the "regex shortcut?"
Bernard> thread of yesterday.
Perhaps you are unclear on what I mean as Troll.
In usenet tradition, a Troll is someone who knowingly and willingly
misleads and misguides, using a net persona as a puppet.
I argue instead in my recent post that Kira is *actually* the way she
represents herself on the net. She's not sitting back behind her
keyboard laughing at us for taking the bait. She actually believes
what she writes.
Is she disruptive? Yes.
Is she wrong? Quite frequently.
Does she handle correction poorly? Absolutely.
But is she a "troll", in the classic sense? I don't believe so.
She's not putting up a pretense. I believe she believes what she
writes, because I've seen a consistent point of view from which
everything she writes makes sense. I don't need to agree with that
point of view to understand it.
And I say this because of many subtle challenges and responses I've
seen over the years, and the slow mutation of the knowledge base, so
she *is* learning. But she believes she knows more than she does, and
she's easily threatened by any disagreement, and would rather attack
than understand or defend. I've known more than a few people like
that in real life. Think of a classic PHB. Her tragic flaw is that
she has to hold on very tightly to her position, lest it dissolve, and
that shows up on the net as bizarre responses.
Maybe you classify "troll" as merely "disruptive". That would dilute
the term, but I wanted you to see what I meant, and I still stand by
what I said, in the meaning that I hope I've now made clear.
Bernard El-Hagin
Schwartz) wrote:
>>>>>> "Bernard" == Bernard El-Hagin <bernard.el-hagin@DODGE_THISlido-tech.net> writes:
>
>>> She is not a "troll"
[...]
>Perhaps you are unclear on what I mean as Troll.
[snipped Randal's interpretation of "troll"]
I yield that by your definition she is not a troll. I also think that
"troll" is more often understood in a broader sense, by which she *is*
a troll.
In any case I think you shouldn't encourage her by saying anything
even remotely positive about her, though. <g>
Randal L. Schwartz
Bernard> I yield that by your definition she is not a troll. I also think that
Bernard> "troll" is more often understood in a broader sense, by which she *is*
Bernard> a troll.
I think the phrase for someone who is genuinely batty is "net.kook". :)
Bernard El-Hagin
Schwartz) wrote:
>>>>>> "Bernard" == Bernard El-Hagin <bernard.el-hagin@DODGE_THISlido-tech.net> writes:
>
>Bernard> I yield that by your definition she is not a troll. I also think that
>Bernard> "troll" is more often understood in a broader sense, by which she *is*
>Bernard> a troll.
>
>I think the phrase for someone who is genuinely batty is "net.kook". :)
Heh, that would be me.
Cheers,
Bernard
--
echo 42|perl -pe '$#="Just another netkook,"'
Martien Verbruggen
>
>>> She is not a "troll"
>
>Bernard> This is the first time I have ever doubted any words you've ever
>Bernard> authored, Randal, and I'm very disappointed that someone who carries
>Bernard> so much authority around here and in the Perl community gives that
>Bernard> monstrous parody of a programmer the go-ahead to keep on acting the
>Bernard> way it's acting. Because, in effect, that's what your words are doing.
>Bernard> Who is going to question Randal Schwartz, after all? If you still
>Bernard> doubt that it's a troll please have a look at the "regex shortcut?"
>Bernard> thread of yesterday.
>
> Perhaps you are unclear on what I mean as Troll.
>
> In usenet tradition, a Troll is someone who knowingly and willingly
> misleads and misguides, using a net persona as a puppet.
You definition of a troll is much narrower than generally accepted. See
for example the jargon file for a more general definition of troll.
> Maybe you classify "troll" as merely "disruptive". That would dilute
> the term, but I wanted you to see what I meant, and I still stand by
> what I said, in the meaning that I hope I've now made clear.
Not 'merely "disruptive"'. More than that. Ok, here's the bit from the
Jargon file that I would use to define troll (there are other entries,
but you can all use web browsers, can't you?) :
2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts
specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup,
discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone
or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they
have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply
want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after,
they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are
recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him,
he's just a troll."
Martien
--
|
Martien Verbruggen |
| What's another word for Thesaurus?
|
Jon Ericson
> Not 'merely "disruptive"'. More than that. Ok, here's the bit from the
> Jargon file that I would use to define troll (there are other entries,
> but you can all use web browsers, can't you?) :
>
> 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts
> specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup,
> discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone
> or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they
> have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply
> want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after,
> they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are
> recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him,
> he's just a troll."
Notice that this particular definition requires understanding of
motivation ("for no other purpose", "no real interest" and "simply
want"). Sometimes I don't understand my own motivation, much less the
motivation of someone on Usenet.
Jon
--
Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their
work: If one falls down, his friend can help him up... Though one
may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three
strands is not quickly broken. -- Ecclesiastes 4:9,12 (NIV)
Alan Barclay
>accurate. Kira is no troll. Kira is just a junior programmer
>pretending to be a senior programmer, with all the trappings of such.
A junior programmer with paranoid delusions, and a bit of a problem in
remembering who posted. The former is demonstrated when it acuses people
of being "Frank", and the latter when it argues with itself.
Ilya Zakharevich
Martien Verbruggen
<mg...@tradingpost.com.au>], who wrote in article <slrna8aei...@martien.heliotrope.home>:
> > Maybe you classify "troll" as merely "disruptive". That would dilute
> > the term, but I wanted you to see what I meant, and I still stand by
> > what I said, in the meaning that I hope I've now made clear.
>
> Not 'merely "disruptive"'. More than that.
Hey, Martien: True, but:
... but I must admit that *your* contributions to threads involving
Godzilla are often of similar qualities. (However different your
motivations are.) Which is especially pitiful, given that the rest of
your net-personality is so positive...
[ I hope that your take this mild reproach from me without a lot of
offence. Especially knowing that I've been guilty of overreactions
similar to yours. :-(
]
Ilya
Joe Schaefer
> Hey, Martien: True, but:
>
> ... but I must admit that *your* contributions to threads involving
> Godzilla are often of similar qualities. (However different your
> motivations are.) Which is especially pitiful, given that the rest of
> your net-personality is so positive...
>
> [ I hope that your take this mild reproach from me without a lot of
> offence. Especially knowing that I've been guilty of overreactions
> similar to yours. :-(
> ]
This thread, which my newsreader had autoplonked until your reply
resurrected it, disgusts me. The OP (John Callender) objects to
the "troll" label, ostensibly preferring "loon". Randal's first "patch"
was IMO a complete whitewash, but later appears to imply that "net.kook"
might be palatable. Now I see Ilya Z censoring Martien for not
providing enough "positive" comments while responding to Godzilla's
offensive articles.
Godzilla is absolutely right- what a bunch of whinging sissies.
--
Joe Schaefer "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied
even to prayer."
--Mark Twain
bernard....@dodge_thislido-tech.net
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
> Martien Verbruggen
><mg...@tradingpost.com.au>], who wrote in article <slrna8aei...@martien.heliotrope.home>:
>> > Maybe you classify "troll" as merely "disruptive". That would dilute
>> > the term, but I wanted you to see what I meant, and I still stand by
>> > what I said, in the meaning that I hope I've now made clear.
>>
>> Not 'merely "disruptive"'. More than that.
>
> Hey, Martien: True, but:
>
> ... but I must admit that *your* contributions to threads involving
> Godzilla are often of similar qualities. (However different your
> motivations are.) Which is especially pitiful, given that the rest of
> your net-personality is so positive...
The key phrase here is "involving Godzilla". Never does Martien post
in such a manner if the reply is not to a Godzilla post.