I'm glad you took the time to answer that as you did. The short form ("you are not your actions"), can easily be misunderstood, as apparently many have. Having said that, I think you're trying to make robots out of people. It's difficult to distance onesself enough from an action *just made*, in order to see critique as help, rather than an attack.

I think, in the first instance(s) after creating something, or doing something, or indeed in the process of doing it, we have to identify with our actions, as they are a part of us at that moment. It takes time to distance onesself enough to be able to be critical of ourselves.

This reminds me somewhat about a practice that (apparently) goes on in the army. If theres a problem of some sort between two people/soldiers, anyone that wishes to complain is supposed to sleep over it, and complain the next day, if there's still reason to. The reason being to both time to distance themselves, and understand their actions from a different perspective. I find it quite a good idea, and many a time I've wanted to reply to a post/person in some scathing manner, Ive waited a while to see if I still wanted to later.

Now, you're probably going to say that in some cases one just can't afford to wait, that its better for various reasons to avert disaster now, than wait until morning. And in many cases you'd be right. One should however still try to take into account many (young/new) programmers may take offense at such, even if, on the next day, what you said makes perfect sense to them too, and they maybe even feel foolish for not understanding your reply in the heat of the moment.

What I'm clumsily trying to point out is, that your choosing to be effective rather than polite may have the opposite effect than intended, because people may get so hung up on the fact that you are calling them fools (and not their actions foolish, which is apparently what you intended), and not actually realise which point you are trying to get across. (I know I have).

Anyway, this theory of 'wait and do it tomorrow' should also apply to the people that think "I'll reply to this thread with a funky solution to garner some XP". *These* people should at least think long enough to add warnings to their code when they know it's not a good thing to do, or indeed whether they should post it at all. (A technique also practiced by me on occasion, I make a note of what I wanted to post, and look again on the following day).

Thanks for the explanation. I'll try to keep it in mind next time I read some of your comments, though it won't be easy. Maybe linking to the above post (or entire thread) in your signature would help.

C.

In reply to Re^4: A modest request of Merlyn by castaway
in thread A modest request of Merlyn by delirium

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.