Re^2: Brannigan: hash validation

Please consider posting with a named account—or technical details on the hard way—so others can know how much credibility to attach to your opinion. As an AnonyMonk it's not worth the electricity that lights the pixels to display it since we have no idea if your opinion is solid gold or ~~gobshite vomitus~~ #FakeNews. Acronym dropping and being excited about XSLT points the compass toward the latter pole in my book.

Comment on Re^2: Brannigan: hash validation

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Brannigan: hash validation by Anonymous Monk on Feb 14, 2018 at 19:56 UTC
? solid gold or #FakeNews Ha! That sounds like you've lost access to the central git repository where #RealTruth is kept.	[reply]
Re^3: Brannigan: hash validation by Anonymous Monk on Feb 14, 2018 at 23:24 UTC
RTFM? If the pod matches the opinion ( extras undetected ) you can believe it ... or just believe the pod? Crusading against AM am YOING	[reply]
Re^4: Brannigan: hash validation by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Feb 15, 2018 at 00:59 UTC
Neither has any brand credibility and since I am not in the market for a validation framework and am firmly against squashing harmless insects, I have no action items from this meeting. Sidebar: Another benefit of logging in is you can edit your node when you realize you forgot to say that extra clever thing you think of 10 minutes later instead of needing a whole new post and ensuing acceleration of the needless massacre of electrons.	[reply]
Re^5: Brannigan: hash validation by Anonymous Monk on Feb 15, 2018 at 11:54 UTC
Neither does your mother	[reply]