No Jihaad has been called.

No one is scheduled for sacrifice.

That said, please allow me to continue the argument.

> How is one psuedonym ok but two are bad?
I never said that. Multiple people have multiple accounts here, for whatever reason, and I could care less. It's how the first account was used that we have trouble with. I'll explain below.

> And your belief in "schemes" shouldn't require him to deny it. Prove he had a prior motive to slam perl or stop maligning him by implying otherwise.
I consider princepawn's explanation of his actions to be questionable. So do several others. The "proof" you ask for is in the pudding. I "called him out" as you say for a better explanation, a better version of Let us give thanks for princepawn shall whine no more. That's all.

> Conned? How were you conned? If the posts stand on their own, how did not knowing it was princepawn "con" you.

extremely... I'm not trying to insult you, but from that it sounds like you're missing the point entirely. I've explained my position in detail here and here. There's not a whole lot more I can add to my argument, or say to you. We've been encouraged to drop it. But because I feel obligated to argue my stance on the issue, I'm going to try again.

If a person pretends to be something he's not, for an explicit purpose involving other people, we consider that "to con." The person is a "con-artist" in that he (or she) uses a variety of emotional and mental techniques to convince the "victim" of some concept, or some opinion. Like "buy this cure-all" or "I'm not too bright, you can trust me" or "the Earth is flat." You get the idea.

princepawn has said "...being princepawn has been a keen insight into human nature." The context implies that he was masquerading as princepawn to prove a point, mainly that "certain people will attack you blindly and hatefully after awhile even if you are correct." Furthermore, he has said that his alter ego, metaperl, is "proof of [his] ability to 'go with the flow'."

From the above we can surmise the following: The two versions of the person we know online as princepawn and metaperl are inherently different. By reading their posts we can see that both are reasonably intelligent when it comes to Perl as a language, yet one seems "unable to connect the dots" as far as programming concepts and PerlMonks behaviour (researching before asking questions). From the reputations and experiences of both, we can see that one is generally well-accepted (we will call this, metaperl, the 'true' identity) and the other is not (princepawn, the 'false' identity). By true and false I mean relative to how this person is in real life. The fact of the matter may be that both are false, but for the sake of my argument I'm going to name one false and one true.

Before princepawn's revelation, we all lived in blissful ignorance, thinking that princepawn is/was a intelligent, if rude and inane at times, Perl programmer. He made outrageous claims¹ about Perl fallacies, he infrequently "did his homework" before posting a question² to Seekers of Perl Wisdom. The end result of his presence on PerlMonks was aggravation and wasted time on behalf of many monks here. Monks that would defend Perl from his attacks¹ and answer his unresearched questions.

Now we find that the false identity, princepawn, was actually a front for the true identity, metaperl. What does this mean? Well, it means that princepawn was pretending to be this intelligent, if rude and inane at times, Perl programmer, who couldn't seem to connect the dots on basic programming concepts, and never did his homework before posting a question to Seekers of Perl Wisdom. He had us all fooled into believing this. Why did he do this? To prove a point.

The end result? Wasted time of many monks, to answer the fake questions and fake claims of Perl fallicies. To prove his point, apparently.

We were conned. Swindled, manipulated, cajoled, persuaded. (From http://m-w.com.) See above for a more complete definition. Time, valuable time (my time is not valuable, so I have no trouble taking time to write this :) was wasted. All to prove a point. (Yes, I know I'm repeating myself. I'm trying to drive this point home!)

Do you understand what I am trying to say, now?

What now? Well, the way I see it, there are a few options.

1. A Better Explanation
   princepawn may have misstated a few things in his original explanation. If this is the case, a better version of his story would be swell.
2. The True Identity
   Maybe princepawn was just being himself. Maybe metaperl is really the false identity, and it took actual effort from princepawn to act so sensible and polite. In this case, the unresearched questions will continue to be asked, the attacks on Perl as a language will continue, and time will continue to be wasted. It is my ever-so humble opinion that something needs to be done about that.

I'm done. I have no more to say. This is the last post I will be making on the subject of princepawn for a long, long while. This is not my crusade, this is not my flame war. This is just my opinion. I am upset and frustrated, and now I hope you understand why.

Friar Alakaboo

---

1. Attacks on Perl

This is not a complete list, merely a sampling of recent entries.

• Apparent Inconsistencies in Perl Function Naming
  "Perl...makes consistent operations possible through highly inconsistent means."
• $PERL_USE=$PERL_USE:
  "Too bad Perl doesn't have a syntax similar to the one in my title to save me the trouble..."
• How does one return an Empty list as a return value
  "...there is no simple way for a function to return an empty list and bind this to a Perl array."
• @_0 vs. $_0
  Less of an attack than a statement of the obvious.
• late binding behavior in hash definition
  Same as above. No attack was made, but questioning of the default behaviours was implied.
• What Data::Dumper dumps is not necessarily what is there
• syntax error not detected by Perl compiler

2. Questions

Again, not a complete list, just a sampling of the questions and answers that could have easily been answered in the chatterbox, found with a Super Search, or found with a quick perusing through the Perl docs.

• Where is the constant? Where is the void context?
• eval "our $_;" for @EXPORT fails
• useless use of a constant in a void context?
• Empty list as a return value
  Asks a question that was answered from his last question!

---

---

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! —

• How do I compose an effective node title?
• How do I post a question effectively?
• Markup in the Monastery

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:
	&		&
	<		&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.