in reply to Re^6: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
in thread [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

So introducing a new section based on topicality (even if it's "O.T.") breaks the schema.

So?

The "schema" is important why?

There's all that stuff up there which is for the 'topic':Perl; and this bit over here for:anything else.

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". I'm with torvalds on this
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
  • Comment on Re^7: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 07, 2015 at 18:07 UTC

    Your illogic speaks for itself.

[reply]
      Your illogic speaks for itself.

      That's a coy way of saying that you haven't got a counter argument.

      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". I'm with torvalds on this
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
[reply]

        Not any argument that hasn't already been presented, I suppose. But I've yet to see any cogent argument in favor of breaking the schema.

        Who bears the onus of persuasion?

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion