That’s clearly never been what’s going on. The exact opposite is what’s been achieved all considered.

Sometimes I wonder if some a’y’all nameless monks have ever met real persons in real life with real intrapersonal dynamics, idiosyncrasies, quirks, messy motivations, and histories. It’s one thing to be irritated or have technical reasons to complain/refute. It’s another to drop identity, culpability, empathy, and any sense of grace just to snipe.

Without drawing conclusions, I'd point you first to this extract from his homepage:

(If you’re staring at thousands of lines of unfamiliar and unreliable Perl ... that was written by a long-gone individual, Mike can help you.)

And then this node.

And point out that in most courts of law, "I didn't know" nor "I didn't mean it"; is not a defense; and given his history, he must be aware that his understanding of modern computing in general, and Perl in particular, is (or would be, were it a laughing matter) a joke.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

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. Agile (and TDD) debunked

As I said, there is no argument possible against technical refutations; it’s part of why we’re here. The participation over time that we are discussing clearly destroys any possible market value of the associated publicity. And being ruthless about stating it or ganging up about it just seems cruel when it’s not on *a* specific point of a thread. To simplify it in terms I wouldn’t really pick myself but I feel will be understood: there is no upside to trolling a troll.