|
in reply to RE: RE: RE: Deep Linkage
in thread Deep Linkage
Updated for clarity's sake, so that Aigh can understand what I'm trying to say, updates are underlined:
... and it is ridiculous to suggest that your way is automatically superior...
Well, I wasn't talking about you, Aigh, in that specific node, I was speaking on my behalf, about my beliefs. But, hey, if you, Aigh, feel the need to discuss this, why not? I'm open to diverse ideas. You, Aigh, know for a fact that I will backdown when I see a point. I've done it in the chatterbox in previous conversations between us, you and I. If you, Aigh, can make a valid statement, I will agree. What I disagree with is the automatically superior crap, I mean, if you (anyone) don't have a point (and therefor think that you (anyone) are right), then why make one at all? If its not intended as humor, I can see no use in arguing when you, Aigh, think someone else has a superior way. Does that make any sense, or did it sound like bable?
... Is it wrong of me to remove my image in protest of something I dislike? ...
Oh, do you, Aigh, mean like removing your posts when you, Aigh, see people are voting you, Aigh, down? Yes I think it's wrong. I've been wondering if you'd do that here too if people start voting you, Aigh, down. (and I beleive they have started already)
#!/home/bbq/bin/perl
# Trust no1!
|
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Deep Linkage
by Aighearach (Initiate) on Jul 22, 2000 at 00:47 UTC
|
Are you sure that's all you changed?
>If you, Aigh, can make a valid statement, I will agree
So you are claiming, quite clearly, that my statements are invalid. Interesting that you feel qualified to ack as judge over a debate you start. But considering that you started it only with insults, it is not entirely surprising.
>But, hey, if you, Aigh, feel the need to discuss this, why not?
Well, lets not confuse things here. You are the one wanting to make personal attacks, and I am left defending myself. Don't try to suggest I want this exchange.
>if
you (anyone) don't have a point (and therefor think that you (anyone) are right), then why make
one at all? If its not intended as humor, I can see no use in arguing when you, Aigh, think
someone else has a superior way. Does that make any sense, or did it sound like bable?
It's the same stuff, you telling people how to do it, and insisting there is only the One Way. Yes, I understand it, but no, I don't agree with it.
In any case, you are claiming that it is wrong of me to choose what I protest. This kind of authoritarian language doesn't have a place at PerlMonks. Does it? I don't think telling people what to think should have a place anywhere that is claiming to be a "community." You shouldn't start a thread with this kind of motivation, it is dangerous to the viability of the community.
As for claiming to know my motivations, why I would change some posts and not others, is too ridiculous to go into.
Paris Sinclair | 4a75737420416e6f74686572
pariss@efn.org | 205065726c204861636b6572
http://sinclairinternetwork.com
| [reply] |
|
|
...or are you saying that I do such?
Okay, I updated the previous post for clarity. I knew it sounded like bable. Maybe its more comprehensible now. But yes, I was refering to two specific nodes you removed once they started going down: RE: RE: Re: Constant Functions and Re: Setting Retrieve Method
Maybe removing the pic is a bit different, but nevertheless it leaves the impression that you make things "disapear" quite often when the begin to displease you. I may be wrong, but that is not what it seems.
This kind of authoritarian language...
Care to illustrate?
#!/home/bbq/bin/perl
# Trust no1!
| [reply] |
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
|
|
|
