In recent weeks, I've repeatedly seen you jump on nodes that concern threading and forking in an aggressive (per the above definition) way. You attribute malicious intent to the writers of such nodes where, to my eye(tm), there is none. You also read meanings into these nodes that I cannot detect, then proceed to tear apart these meanings. You attack authors of such nodes personally, when you could just as well argue against the content of their nodes.

I'd ask you to reconsider 4 things:

  1. Is my participation in node on the subject of threading, "jumping"?

    What delineates "jumping" from: supplying answers; or questioning other supplied answers?

  2. Your primary choice of definition of "aggressive", suggests that "initiation" is an important characteristic.

    The time-lines in threads are clearly delineated. Did I initiate?

  3. How can I definitively argue "content" where no technical content is provided?

    Other than by asking for technical content, which I do.

  4. In the absence of an obvious technical reason for the posting of (questionable) content, one does try to discern one.

    Add context, history, knowledge of patterns to the mix, and individual interpretations will differ.

    For example:I find the posting of the assertion "I don't know any of a,b,c to be X", as an "answer" to the question "Is p, X?", to be of extremely questionable value.

    • Does it answer the original question?
    • It is phrased as a follow on question?
    • If it were so phrased, could the asker of the original question reasonably be expected to know the answer?
    • As an assertion, if true, it might shed some light on the original question. But as it is false, what then?
    • As an assertion by a monk known--even renown--for their accuracy and knowledge, what effect does such a false assertion have? What effect was it intended to have?

    I picked that example, because it has (eventually) been honourably withdrawn and corrected. As such, my questioning of it was right, proper and successful.

    There are other, similar assertions in that thread less well, or honourably resolved.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
RIP an inspiration; A true Folk's Guy

In reply to Re^2: What is "aggressive" argument? by BrowserUk
in thread What is "aggressive" argument? by BrowserUk

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.