Re^7: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

So it wasn't discussed before!

I'm accepting your apologies.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

Je suis Charlie!}

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 08, 2015 at 13:20 UTC
I'm happy for you to accept my apologies, even if I did not intend to tender them. :-) I was not responding to the question of whether Topic X (and I'm not even sure what that is) has been discussed before. My point was that "Perl + X" isn't off topic for PerlMonks, or at least seems very unlikely to be, so there's no point in calling it "O.T.", and -- more to the point -- doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether we should have an O.T. section, since it wouldn't go in there anyway. Now, if someone has a purely JS question, without nexus to Perl, that would be O.T. Have I misunderstood something? I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^8: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 08, 2015 at 13:20 UTC

I'm happy for you to accept my apologies, even if I did not intend to tender them. :-)

I was not responding to the question of whether Topic X (and I'm not even sure what that is) has been discussed before. My point was that "Perl + X" isn't off topic for PerlMonks, or at least seems very unlikely to be, so there's no point in calling it "O.T.", and -- more to the point -- doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether we should have an O.T. section, since it wouldn't go in there anyway. Now, if someone has a purely JS question, without nexus to Perl, that would be O.T.

Have I misunderstood something?

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

[reply]