in reply to (parental advisory) It's just f-ing poetry

OK, I'll bite.

Obviously you're talking about this gem. Is your problem that I considered the node for deletion, or that I considered it as "offensive?" If it's the latter, I apologize. Forget that I mentioned the word "offensive" ... that was only because that's what Mr. Muskrat put when he considered the same content almost a year ago, and it seemed as good a one-word reason as any. As it turns out, I don't find the node offensive, just really dumb.

So just pretend my reason for consideration is a little more accurate: something like "utter crap" or "mind-numbingly childish and puerile" or "didn't use strict" or "too much trailing whitespace" instead of "offensive." Maybe even "inappropriate?" The last thing I want to do is be labelled a censor just because I used the magic word "offensive."

Honestly, 

if ($you_are eq 'a policeman') { chomp (my $dick) or die (""); }

[download]
Why is this appropriate for Perl Monks today (so far 3 votes to keep), when it wasn't the last time it was posted (5 votes for deletion, 0 for keep)?

blokhead

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re:x2 (parental advisory) It's just f-ing poetry (know your booleans)
by grinder (Bishop) on Sep 10, 2003 at 06:39 UTC

    I think it's far better to ridicule a poem in public, rather than try to sweep it under the carpet.

    And that's some bad Perl code. I don't think the author realises what that code does. chomp, as you well know, chops a bit off the end of something. Personally, you do that to me, I'd get pretty irate. So that should really read:

        chomp (my $dick) and die ("")

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
      It only chops it off if it's a newline, and who needs newlines?! Maybe he's converting to Judaism and is getting circumcised (hint: foreskin = newline)!

      :-)

[reply]
Re: Re: (parental advisory) It's just f-ing poetry
by PodMaster (Abbot) on Sep 10, 2003 at 07:33 UTC
    The only reason I can see to consider that node is to amend the title to include "(parental advisory)" or something to that affect (kinda like we might do for spoilers).

    Offensive is not a magic word. Just because you consider this poetry to be crap/dumb/childish is no reason to reap it. The node clearly matches the criteria for perl poetry, and as such should definetly not be reaped.

    Why is this appropriate for Perl Monks today (so far 3 votes to keep), when it wasn't the last time it was posted (5 votes for deletion, 0 for keep)?
    Opportunity. Content is moderated by those who are here to moderate it -> NodeReaper loose in the monastery -> and there aren't really any moderation guidelines (it's a work in progress).

    PS -- a funny thing happened when I was quoting you, I started writing </blockhead> ;D
    I'd like to thank castaway for the link.

    MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
    I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
    ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

[reply]
      Just because you consider this poetry to be crap/dumb/childish is no reason to reap it

      No, but all sound reasons for *consideration* in my book. Adding in the facts that...

      • It was posted anonymously (rare in Poetry, unless the poster suspects that it's likely to be found offensive etc.
      • Current rep of -11
      • Current monastery opinion is running at 23-6 in favour of delete.
      • It's not big and it's not clever :) It may fulfil the criteria, in the same way that "My program doesn't work" fulfils the criteria for an SOPW, but with regard to the 'spirit' of the Poetry section, it's contentless.
      ...makes me think that blokhead's consideration was a fair one.

      Ben.

[reply]

In Section Perl Poetry