in reply to Dissallowing AM to create threads

Now apparently someone or a few individuals are attempting to raise the collective hackles, and frankly it upsets me. ... Am I simply kneejerking, or what?

Yes. But when enough people kneejerk together, it's often called "concensus". However, I suspect that you may be in a minority with this particular set of concerns.

Some posts by Anonymous Monks might trip some flamebaiting filters, but consider whether the resulting threads contain anything valuable. Some people might find that it's easier to approach an uncomfortable topic if they go Anonymous. I'm O.K. with that. We have multiple mechanisms for dealing with posts that go over the line. Some Anonymous posts never get approved.

On the specific articles you cite, I found Ignorant Article to be very interesting, even if it got closer to dealing with personalities than I'm generally comfortable with. Likewise, Use perl wisely, not cleverly carries an odor of troll, but some the responses are interesting, and provided me with some new information on companies that use Perl.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Dissallowing AM to create threads
by pfaut (Priest) on Feb 20, 2003 at 20:22 UTC
    Likewise, Use perl wisely, not cleverly carries an odor of troll, but some the responses are interesting, and provided me with some new information on companies that use Perl.

    And there you have it. Although the thread started with someone declaring 'perl is dead', it documented just how alive it is.

    --- print map { my ($m)=1<<hex($_)&11?' ':''; $m.=substr('AHJPacehklnorstu',hex($_),1) } split //,'2fde0abe76c36c914586c';