in reply to Re^3: Suggested improvement to the 'Permission Denied' page
in thread Suggested improvement to the 'Permission Denied' page

Ken,

I, for one, “struggle with disbelief” when confronted by the realization that PerlMonks does, indeed, appear to have three different incarnations:   .org, .com, .net.   Such that, when I open a new browser-window (being logged-on to the one), and open another, “Perlmonks” now seems to have no knowledge of me.

In every other web-site that I have ever used or known-about, there was “only One True Ring.”   If you inadvertently specified “the wrong” extension, you either got (a) the advertising-laden domain of a “cyber-squatter,” or (b) a silent redirect to the “official” one.   In other words, “all roads (should) lead to www.perlmonks.org.”   Here, much to my six-years-old surprise, this does not appear to be the case.   “Innocent li’l ol’me” now very-frankly wonders ... why not?   Why, indeed why, is this site “the odd Monk out?”

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Suggested improvement to the 'Permission Denied' page
by kcott (Archbishop) on Aug 06, 2013 at 05:14 UTC
    "I, for one, “struggle with disbelief” when confronted by the realization that PerlMonks does, indeed, appear to have three different incarnations: .org, .com, .net."

    This sounded like complete garbage when I first read it: I was certain you'd been given this information already. In fact, I was reasonably certain that you'd been given this information multiple times as you seem to engage in much the same rant whenever this general topic crops up in a thread.

    A quick search of Perl Monks Discussion, for threads started by you, found this one which has this direct reply containing, in the first line:

    "... of the six permutations of the root URI ({www,}.perlmonks.{com,org,net}), ..."

    What you've posted here is clearly just another of your rants. I will be downvoting your node for this reason.

    "In every other web-site that I have ever used or known-about, ... [rant continues] ..."

    Perhaps you could use those websites instead.

    -- Ken

[reply]

      He didn't say he'd never heard it before; he said he still has trouble believing it.

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
[reply]
        "He didn't say he'd never heard it before; ..."

        Nor did he say that he had.

        "... he said he still has trouble believing it." [my emphasis]

        At the time of this reply to your post, it does not say that.

        At the time of replying to his post, it did not say that.

        I actually went to some effort to ensure that something like that was not implied before replying to him:

        • "I, for one, “struggle with disbelief” ..." is present tense — it doesn't say "... have struggled with disbelief and continue to do so ..." or "... am still struggling with disbelief ...".
        • "... PerlMonks does, indeed, appear to have ..." is also present tense — it doesn't say "... still appears to have ...". Furthermore, that actually suggests a current and immediate reaction.

        So, the grammar and general tone all convey the impression that this is all new to him; however, what clearly identifies his intention of suggesting this is something he's never come across, in all the time that he's spent on this site, is this:

        "Here, much to my six-years-old surprise, this does not appear to be the case."

        If you believe his post does somehow imply what you suggest, then we'll have to agree to differ as I see no such implication.

        While I suspect it's unlikely, if you think his post has changed, perhaps consider it with: "Edit: restore original content and show updates." and I will happily update my node accordingly.

        -- Ken

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion