in reply to RE: Re: Quick and easy way to prevent multiple votes?
in thread Quick and easy way to prevent multiple votes?

Please be nice. Many people have never had to consider this problem before and therefore would have no way of knowing these things. Maybe it's YetAnotherTime for you but that's what cooperative forums for a community of any sort have to deal in 99% of the time. That's what FAQ's are all about and why it's great to reference them for answers. Thanks very much. TTFN & Shalom.

  • Comment on RE: RE: Re: Quick and easy way to prevent multiple votes?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE:(4) (Re: Please Be Nice)
by Russ (Deacon) on Jun 08, 2000 at 12:11 UTC
    Good comment, PipTigger.

    Perl Monks is a community, with a wide range of skills, knowledge and experience. Though it is easy to forget how little we each knew when we were just starting to program (and/or starting CGI/internet programming), no one has the right to be abusive or even just brusque -- no matter how obvious one may think the answer is.

    In merlyn's defense, I think he was simply trying to be certain he made the point, and was not trying to be rude. Less rhetoric and force next time, Randal. Please. If you tire of having "to repeat this stuff Yet Another Time," let those of us with a little compassion handle it <nobr>so you don't have to... ;-)</nobr>

    Apterigo just created the Perl Monks user account a few weeks ago. Let's not run off new users as punishment for trying to contribute to our community.


      While I agree with your comments and general sentiment, I find your defense of merlyn not very defensive at all. To say that he lacks compassion is just flat out wrong. All one has to do is look at (a) the ongoing legacy of his contributions to the Perl community, and (b) his own words.

      Yes, style counts. Please be more kind with your own words.

      e-mail neshura

        neshura said: Yes, style counts. Please be more kind with your own words.


        My winkie was apparently not enough... I was not accusing merlyn of being a mean-spirited individual, only suggesting (too obliquely, I'm sure) that if a question evokes strong feeling in him or his answer, perhaps those of us with less stellar qualifications should field that question. If some post makes him want to only respond with a negative, possibly mis-interpretable, and unhelpful rant, just skip it. (I have assumed/hoped all along that he simply forgot to put a smiley or winkie after the "don't make me have to repeat this" part.)

        If some answer is painfully obvious to me, I will usually not respond to it. This allows others to contribute to our community, each at his/her own level and helps prevent anyone from being offended at my own "stylistic shortcomings," which are all-too-frequent (as seen here).

        His response was voted up when I last saw it, and it could be amusing to those of us who have some understanding of these issues. But it was not directed at someone who had exhibited understanding. How else to interpret his words, then, but as an insult? That's what I was trying to say in merlyn's defense. He was not trying to be insulting; he was just trying to make a memorable point.

        Perhaps someone will apply that logic to my insulting attempt to make a memorable point. ;-)

        I responded as I did to this thread, because: in the midst of an otherwise vibrant, helpful and educational series of posts, merlyn's was simply negative. He did not offer any solutions to the problem, only criticism of someone else's idea. Not constructive criticism, just criticism. Other people said the same thing, but in such a way that readers could learn something. See turnstep's answer for just one example.


        P.S. Just as an aside...a legacy of contributions to a community does not a compassionate person make. Richard Stallman has a huge legacy of contributions to the free software community, but few would accuse him of having kind and gentle people-skills. :-)