I thought about this overnight, and in each case, you are right: I lacked some understanding

I think my mode of putting forth assertions has to do with having spent 5 years as a biological scientist. As biologists, we often write papers and abstracts where we make statements. For example, my professor's chief rival published a paper entitled: "Synaptic Integration is Linear and Position-Independent". We then responded with an abstract entitled "Non-linear and position-dependent synaptic integration in CA Pyramidal Cells."

Now, although it was not stated in either title, the key phrase of merlyn's response to me, is implicitly implied in both titles: based on our current understanding

They, as scientists, and we also, as scientists, had a hypothesis, some tests, and some conclusions which resulted in a conclusion. Neither group of researchers was under the illusion that our paper was the final word on the topic of synaptic integration, yet each title was made as what you guys would seem to think is a statement of fact, when it really is: a statement of fact based on our current understanding

Thus, when I, or actually anyone posts to this board, other than maybe the 1 or 2 people who really, really know Perl entirely, they are making a statement based on their limited understanding. And this should be obvious and understood... and in fact entertaining. It always tickles me when someone who has been using Perl for 1 month of so posts up a message like "Perl compiler broken" when actually the fault lay with their program.

I can't say I find it appealing to spend a lot of time writing mealy-mouthed, squirrely "well, you know guys, I have this error. And you know, it might just be me, but it seems there's a bug somewhere in Perl." Its much more to the point to state your position and the data supporting it, and then receive whatever rebuttle or higher advisement that others are willing to impart.

But, then again, the majority of the people here seem to think I need to modify my behavior to suit them, so I am willing to at least get some input from you if you have anything to say.

In reply to RE: RE: RE: (Ovid - question your posting strategy) by princepawn
in thread What Data::Dumper dumps is not necessarily what is there by princepawn

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.