A matter of perspective (and ego), clearly,

Feels like a dig; but I can't see what your getting at so I'll ignore it.

I'd call that an example of success of the current system.

I fail to see how limiting interactions between willing participants here can ever be considered a success; if we inhibited all interactions; that'd be an even bigger success right!

Again, your judgement versus the expressed judgements of how many individuals?

Vocal or silent, how many individuals have upvotes pro-posts; versus those that have down-voted anti-posts in this thread?

And how many pro-OT section monk's have left this place taking their experience and knowledge with them because their jobs have evolved to mean they no longer work with Perl and thus find this place no longer of relevance?

Maybe if this place was more tolerant of the reality that most of us daily deal with languages and subjects that whilst on the edges of Perl; are still relevant to what we do with Perl; more of those often highly knowledgeable people would still be around; and this place would be all the better for them.

I fail to see how limiting interactions between willing participants here can ever be considered a success

Nonetheless, I do think it is a success, because I am of the opinion that PerlMonks should remain focused on Perl. Sure, OT posts happen. But keeping that train from running away is a desirable end. I don't want to see the floodgates opened.

if we inhibited all interactions; that'd be an even bigger success right!

Surely you don't think I think that. But on the other hand, your position seems to be an extreme one: that there should be no constraints whatsoever. To me, the optimum would be: Everything Perl, and Very Little Else.

your judgement versus the expressed judgements of how many individuals?

My opinion. As a user of the site, I am entitled to one, yes? Hence my remark that it is a matter of perspective.

how many individuals have upvotes pro-posts; versus those that have down-voted anti-posts in this thread?

I don't know, but I don't believe those numbers would have much meaning, not least because people use their upvotes/downvotes to express quite a bit more than just agreement/disagreement with the (main?) position of the post. If the intent is to get a true democratic pulse, we'd probably want to run a poll. Even that would not be very meaningful, having as it would all the usual confounding factors. That's why I'm trying to take a different approach, one which I think would be effective under our circumstances.

how many pro-OT section monk's have left this place....

I think you know as well as I do that (a) there is no way to know the answer to that question, and (b) your asking it is a straw man.

Maybe if this place was more tolerant of the reality...

If this place was the whole of the Internet -- as AOL tried to be, back in 1993 -- then there would be some merit to that argument. But if you want to talk about python, or cryptocurrencies, or The Chinese Threat, there are other, better places you can go.

I've stressed that the "sections are not topical" -- but that's because PerlMonks is topical. And the topic is Perl! When you want to talk about Perl, or anything with even a tangential connection to Perl, this is the place to come.

Just because you like the way PerlMonks works, and you feel at home here, that doesn't mean it has to be your sandbox for every purpose you can imagine.

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

My opinion. As a user of the site, I am entitled to one, yes?

Of course. We both. And all others.

Once again I'll say that I'm using your willingness to debate rationally and calmly, as a proxy for the keepers of the status quo. Ie. For "your opinion" (because I'm talking to you), read "the opinions of those few guardians of the sources".

It becomes verbose, laborious and tiresome to try and phrase such discussion without using the personal pronoun; and confusing as hell to try and use 'they', 'them' or 'their' when replying to one signatory.

If this place was the whole of the Internet -- as AOL tried to be, back in 1993

I acknowledged quite clearly above that there would have to be limits: I suggested programming-related; with additional, specified proscriptions.

My Javascript question arose whilst writing a simple piece of user interface code that allows me to present and interact with graphics constructed by a Perl backend.

I (breifly) tried writing the whole thing is JS; but my distaste for JS; plus its inherent limitations with respect to accessing the local filesystem amongst others; meant I rapidly longed to be back into Perl.

So my current direction is to do the bulk of the processing, including the generation of the images that are the final output, in Perl, and then throw them into the browser for display.

To control what is generated by the back end, I want to use some simple controls in the browser to feed options back to the perl script. And that requires small amounts of Javascript.

So there is a link to Perl; but it is very tenuous. However, given the high proportion of Web Monk's for who JS + Perl is their daily bread&butter; I can think of no place I could go to get better answers from people I have a clear idea of their abilities than to ask them here.

Ditto: for many of my math/statistics and other questions. I've tried math forums in the past, but the answers are always couched in terms that make sense to other mathematicians but not so much to programmers. On the other hand, the answers I get here are generally ones that get me directly to a solution.

And both the OP and much of the pro sentiment in this thread has reflected that simple desire: to have permission to draw on the experience of those other regulars here who's skills extend beyond Perl. And do so without incurring the ire or imposing upon those who aren't interested.

As much as anything else; the desire to have an off-topic section is about respecting the wishes of those others who don't want to disturb by these 'other subjects'; whilst benefiting from the strengths of this place.

I'll admit that I am baffled by the resistance to allow others to utilise this place in that way.

that doesn't mean it has to be your sandbox for every purpose you can imagine.

Talking of Straw men.

I say it again. I didn't start the thread; nor did I have any involvement in the post & thread that inspired it.

I simply supported the call, and tried to provide reasoned argument in support of it.

I can see now I had it right in my first post in this thread.

---

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

'Maybe if this place was more tolerant of the reality that most of us daily deal with languages and subjects that whilst on the edges of Perl; are still relevant to what we do with Perl; more of those often highly knowledgeable people would still be around; and this place would be all the better for them.'

And maybe they left because of intolerant people like you?

And maybe they left because of intolerant people like you?

Your saying we can't have anything non-perl here and calling me intolerant. I've 21000 posts that prove you wrong; where's your record?

The only thing I'm intolerant of here is willful stupidity; and that's probably your Achilles Heal.

---

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