Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

(my last post WRT) Consider Your Audience

by mwp (Hermit)
on Nov 27, 2000 at 12:09 UTC ( [id://43461]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: (rebuttal) Re: Re: Consider Your Audience (SHAME)
in thread Consider Your Audience

No Jihaad has been called.

No one is scheduled for sacrifice.

That said, please allow me to continue the argument.

> How is one psuedonym ok but two are bad?
I never said that. Multiple people have multiple accounts here, for whatever reason, and I could care less. It's how the first account was used that we have trouble with. I'll explain below.

> And your belief in "schemes" shouldn't require him to deny it. Prove he had a prior motive to slam perl or stop maligning him by implying otherwise.
I consider princepawn's explanation of his actions to be questionable. So do several others. The "proof" you ask for is in the pudding. I "called him out" as you say for a better explanation, a better version of Let us give thanks for princepawn shall whine no more. That's all.

> Conned? How were you conned? If the posts stand on their own, how did not knowing it was princepawn "con" you.

extremely... I'm not trying to insult you, but from that it sounds like you're missing the point entirely. I've explained my position in detail here and here. There's not a whole lot more I can add to my argument, or say to you. We've been encouraged to drop it. But because I feel obligated to argue my stance on the issue, I'm going to try again.

If a person pretends to be something he's not, for an explicit purpose involving other people, we consider that "to con." The person is a "con-artist" in that he (or she) uses a variety of emotional and mental techniques to convince the "victim" of some concept, or some opinion. Like "buy this cure-all" or "I'm not too bright, you can trust me" or "the Earth is flat." You get the idea.

princepawn has said "...being princepawn has been a keen insight into human nature." The context implies that he was masquerading as princepawn to prove a point, mainly that "certain people will attack you blindly and hatefully after awhile even if you are correct." Furthermore, he has said that his alter ego, metaperl, is "proof of [his] ability to 'go with the flow'."

From the above we can surmise the following: The two versions of the person we know online as princepawn and metaperl are inherently different. By reading their posts we can see that both are reasonably intelligent when it comes to Perl as a language, yet one seems "unable to connect the dots" as far as programming concepts and PerlMonks behaviour (researching before asking questions). From the reputations and experiences of both, we can see that one is generally well-accepted (we will call this, metaperl, the 'true' identity) and the other is not (princepawn, the 'false' identity). By true and false I mean relative to how this person is in real life. The fact of the matter may be that both are false, but for the sake of my argument I'm going to name one false and one true.

Before princepawn's revelation, we all lived in blissful ignorance, thinking that princepawn is/was a intelligent, if rude and inane at times, Perl programmer. He made outrageous claims1 about Perl fallacies, he infrequently "did his homework" before posting a question2 to Seekers of Perl Wisdom. The end result of his presence on PerlMonks was aggravation and wasted time on behalf of many monks here. Monks that would defend Perl from his attacks1 and answer his unresearched questions.

Now we find that the false identity, princepawn, was actually a front for the true identity, metaperl. What does this mean? Well, it means that princepawn was pretending to be this intelligent, if rude and inane at times, Perl programmer, who couldn't seem to connect the dots on basic programming concepts, and never did his homework before posting a question to Seekers of Perl Wisdom. He had us all fooled into believing this. Why did he do this? To prove a point.

The end result? Wasted time of many monks, to answer the fake questions and fake claims of Perl fallicies. To prove his point, apparently.

We were conned. Swindled, manipulated, cajoled, persuaded. (From http://m-w.com.) See above for a more complete definition. Time, valuable time (my time is not valuable, so I have no trouble taking time to write this :) was wasted. All to prove a point. (Yes, I know I'm repeating myself. I'm trying to drive this point home!)

Do you understand what I am trying to say, now?

What now? Well, the way I see it, there are a few options.

  1. A Better Explanation
    princepawn may have misstated a few things in his original explanation. If this is the case, a better version of his story would be swell.
  2. The True Identity
    Maybe princepawn was just being himself. Maybe metaperl is really the false identity, and it took actual effort from princepawn to act so sensible and polite. In this case, the unresearched questions will continue to be asked, the attacks on Perl as a language will continue, and time will continue to be wasted. It is my ever-so humble opinion that something needs to be done about that.

I'm done. I have no more to say. This is the last post I will be making on the subject of princepawn for a long, long while. This is not my crusade, this is not my flame war. This is just my opinion. I am upset and frustrated, and now I hope you understand why.

Friar Alakaboo

1. Attacks on Perl

This is not a complete list, merely a sampling of recent entries.

2. Questions

Again, not a complete list, just a sampling of the questions and answers that could have easily been answered in the chatterbox, found with a Super Search, or found with a quick perusing through the Perl docs.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (my last post WRT) Consider Your Audience
by extremely (Priest) on Nov 27, 2000 at 14:42 UTC
    OK, this is devolving but I have to get a few more words in edgewise before I quit this in disgust.

    One, "con" in the meaning we are (hopefully) all using it is short for "confidence". Thus, a con-man is a "confidence man" or a perpetrator of "confidence games". I'll quote www.m-w.com on "2confidence" since you like that site: "of, relating to, or adept at swindling by false promises." I don't think that characterizes in anyway what he did. Perhaps if you use conned as "tricked" then, yes he did so but in no way did he abuse what trust he built up with the second account.

    Everything below your sig is unworthy of you or a response from me. We didn't need to rehash what he's done that annoys you.

    Three, quoting you:

    Now we find that the false identity, princepawn, was actually a front for the true identity, metaperl. What does this mean? Well, it means that princepawn was pretending to be this intelligent, if rude and inane at times, Perl programmer, who couldn't seem to connect the dots on basic programming concepts, and never did his homework before posting a question to Seekers of Perl Wisdom. He had us all fooled into believing this. Why did he do this? To prove a point.

    You jump from making vague points about his behavior to ascribing motives here. Worse, a simple check would have shown you that princepawn has been around since May but metaperl has only been on since October. Five months is one elaborate plan! Also you talk about the two as if they were different personality traits or that he was deliberately playing different roles in each. I think merlyn's suggestion that he merely watched his own behavior closer when posting as metaperl simply because he didn't want to be revealed at princepawn until he had verified his theory was correct.

    I really don't see anything sinister in that behavior and in fact I toyed with suggesting that he do this very thing about a month ago. To make it more scientific he should have written each post then randomly picked a login so that he would treat each one the same but I won't get caught up in method. See I (and likely he) don't see this as an abuse of trust, I see him announcing that A. he really can work at fitting in, so cut him some slack with his preferred nickname so he can prove he's changed, and B. crowing that he "proved that on recent posts he was being unfairly filtered through a past he was trying to leave behind."

    Really, about your final points 1 and 2, I see them as being correct, both of them. He could have explained himself better and prince really is his real personality. The only thing I disagree with in your summation is that something needs to be done about it. I see metaperl and in recent posts (mostly) a new sense of acting appropriately for the site. I see him trying to understand what people want from him and trying to match that.

    And honestly, I see people with your attitude as the problem, not him. If I were to treat you as you treat prince above, I'd still be calling you "paranoid" months from now after you've long since ceased to care about this issue. I doubt that you are tho and I doubt very much he has an elaborate scheme to abuse this site, our time or the very perl from which we all sprung.

    The funny thing is, I bet if the three of us met IRL that you and prince would have a lot more in common than either of you would with me. OTOH, he seems to be willing to let by-gones be by-gones and you seem to be holding a grudge rather tight to your heart.

    Of course, I've been wrong before and will be again, likely even before I post again. And to answer your question, yes, I understood your point all along, read my post again yourself. I asked how you had been conned, you give me supposition in response. I asked you to prove your accusation that he had prior motive to troll or trick you for a nefarious purpose and you give me more theories.

    You read my first post again you'll likely note that it is this unreasoning supposition that I'm railing about in the first place. My call to Ovid was wordy but simple, cut prince a break and see if he's changed like he says he has. Don't keep turning up the rhetoric everytime he shows up. I ache to see someone trying to crawl up into the light (however stubbornly) and the very people who have been screaming about his behavior trying to kick him back down.

    --
    $you = new YOU;
    honk() if $you->love(perl)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://43461]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (4)
As of 2024-03-28 16:43 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found