Re^3: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz (downvote)

You might find it helpful to consult the site documentation (see the "Need Help??" link at the top of each page) which notes that a single downvote on a node likely has at least as much to do with the person casting the vote as with the node voted upon.

At the time you wrote this reply, you only had a single down-vote on the prior node. Escalating a single downvote into a yet another discussion about voting reasons often changes the types of votes you get, so the single down-vote might be the only one actually due to (one person's reaction to) just the prior node.

If you are really curious about why someone might downvote, besides the site documentation, you can read through many, many previous discussions on voting. It sounds like you, like most, don't downvote w/o a fairly serious reason. But that is just how most monks vote, not all of them. Some down-vote all of the time and almost never up-vote, so, obviously, they down-vote for less than serious reasons (or else they think the site is chock full of serious problems, I guess). Some monks have pet peaves. And, of course, everybody can have a bad day and take it out on somebody else.

Are you really so conceited that you can't even imagine some reason why someone might dislike your prior node? :)

Finally, some advise: Meta-discussion points such as your "link between the threads" are usually better received if they are accompanied by some non-meta-discussion points. That is, try to contribute to the main topic of the thread if you want to make some point about the discussion itself (not the topic of the discussion).

- tye

Comment on Re^3: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz (downvote)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz (downvote) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 30, 2007 at 01:40 UTC
Are you really so conceited that you can't even imagine some reason why someone might dislike your prior node? :) Smiley acknowledged an'all, is it conceited to want to know why a simple, informative, by any measure factually correct post would warrent a negative reception, rather than having to guess? Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re^5: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz (downvote) by tye (Sage) on Aug 30, 2007 at 02:19 UTC
Let's stick to what I asked (note that my sentence wasn't even a statement). If one can't even imagine some reason why some one other person might dislike a node one wrote, then conceit certainly is something to consider, IMHO. I never said nor even implied that wanting to know "why" required conceit. I mostly didn't directly discuss "wanting to know why" nor "asking why", as those topics are a bit complex and even more subtle and have been covered ad nauseum elsewhere and rehashing them as part of this thread is something I think worth mostly avoiding (and rehashing them without first reviewing prior art even better to avoid). So I will continue to mostly avoid it. Had I seen eric256's comment, I probably would have skipped my reply. But I didn't like the treatment that I did see Argel receiving. - tye	[reply]
Re^6: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz (downvote) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 30, 2007 at 03:02 UTC
I never said ... And I never said that you said ... The trouble is, when monks in authority, particularly you, appear, or can be misinterpreted to appear to give succour to such notions, you may be misinterpreted to be condoning them. Those who witness a wrong doing silently, implicitly encourage those that perform it. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re^7: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz (silence) by tye (Sage) on Aug 30, 2007 at 06:56 UTC
(OT) Re^4: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz (downvote) by Argel (Prior) on Aug 30, 2007 at 19:23 UTC
Are you really so conceited that you can't even imagine some reason why someone might dislike your prior node? :) Actually, I was just very curious about it. It's the first one I ever recieved that I really was completely baffled about. Nothing more, nothing less.	[reply]


Syntactic Confectionery Delight
	PerlMonks