Your illogic speaks for itself.

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

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?

But I've yet to see any cogent argument in favor of breaking the schema.

That's because you aren't listening.

The very fact that you can point to a few dozen prior discussions on the subject means that the decision should be reviewed.

And publicly; not just a /msg god1 to god2: Let's nip that idea in the bud.

Arguments for:

1. This thread -- along with the many previously ignored.
2. That Perlmonks Discussion already broke the schema.
3. That even post the relatively recent rationalisations; 7 out of the 10 current sections are essentially unused.
4. Because there are Monk's who would like to ask non-Perl related questions;

   And there are Monk's who would be happy and willing to answer them;

   But they hold back from doing so because there is nowhere appropriate to conduct those discussions that doesn't draw the ire of the "That's not Perl-related" crowd; which for many of whom, is the only 'contribution' they ever make to this place.

5. Because life moves on. Yesterday's edicts can be changed.
6. Because the Monk's clearly want it.
7. Because it might breath new life into this place.
8. Because the whole "types of discourse" argument is a crock.

Does your opinion outweigh everyone else's?

---

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