in reply to Has a line been crossed by this user

A couple of points in my defence, if I may:

I would consider myself a reasonably conscientious member of this community. I try to contribute where I think I have something original to say, and otherwise keep to myself and my super searches. I dont expect anything in return, but I certainly do not expect to be witch-hunted over something that is obviously a joke.

Yes, you voiced your opinion a couple of weeks ago. Then you voiced it again several times in the CB - suggesting, as I recall, the javascript was clearly a sign of my duplicitous intent (see footnote).

The biggest complaint verbalized was jZed suggesting it was "quite rude". Perhaps. But that is not severe enough for you?

Has a line been crossed by this user?

Clearly I have crossed one of your lines. What is your actual complaint - disruption to the CB? I think its safe to say that the majority of the CBs contents is smalltalk, and I hardly think the traffic to my homenode generates any sort of disruption worthy of this knee-jerking session.

Now allow me to describe the line you have crossed. You have chosen to make a public example of me, to satisfy some pompous outrage over a trivial matter. You have, on more than one occasion, shit-stirred to aid your feeble little campaign and look - can the responses be any more lackluster?

I still feel confident that my original intentions are not any more objectional than others' in the same vain, and unless specifically asked by a site administrator - the homenode will stay as is. I have no idea what your intentions are, but from now on, I would appreciate if you do not involve me in your pedantry. You are not being "bullied" and I suggest you suck it up (hell, maybe laugh) and never return to my homenode if it disturbs you so much.

PS: monarch - bite me

This is not a javascript issue. The same effect can be achieved using vanilla HTML: 

    <iframe src="?op=message&message=%2Fme+snoops+round+%5BCtrl-z%5Ds+
+homenode&message_send=talk">

[download]
The javascript exists to ensure that myself, anonymous-monks and robots do not cause unnecessary crud in the CB - ironic, no?




time was, I could move my arms like a bird and...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Has a line been crossed by this user
by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Jul 05, 2005 at 21:13 UTC
    my original intentions are not any more objectional than others' in the same vain
    I cannot recall ever seeing a more appropriate typo.
    Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.
[reply]
Re^2: Has a line been crossed by this user
by PhilHibbs (Hermit) on Jul 05, 2005 at 21:03 UTC
    You have chosen to make a public example of me,
    I think you asked for it. I am actually considerably less upset about this than a lot of others, judging by their comments in the CB. Maybe it was arrogant of me to take it upon myself to voice theirour concerns, and I will take that into consideration in the future.

    The fact that you could have made it worse than it already is is not relevant - I have always interpreted homenode buttons as some kind of crusade against JavaScript and IE users, maybe I'm wrong in your case. I find JavaScript very useful, and the only site that has casued me problems with it is PerlMonks.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "duplicitous intent", but I did comment (if I recall correctly) that the fact that the code specifically avoids doing anything if it's you that is browsing with JavaScript turned on was an example double-standards. U:Maybe I used the wrong word.

    Update:And if you don't think that the Chatterbox is worthwhile, then just turn it off.

[reply]
      I think you asked for it.

      To be fair, most of the recent traffic to my homenode was generated by you. It was not my intention to cause such controversy, and I dont think I would have on my own. Needless to say any humourous/educational aspect seems well and truly lost...the script is gone.

      I appreciate the sober response - I too am not here for a "slagging match". Live and learn.




      time was, I could move my arms like a bird and...
[reply]
        Howdy!

        I'm unclear just what aspect of that was either humorous or educational. It seemed to be more like painting a hallway with Nitrogen Triiodide. People innocently "blunder" into the booby trap, and the effects of doing so are shared with way too many people who aren't in on the joke.

        That the ChatterBox is frequently silly (or Scilly, even) and subject to small talk is irrelevant. At least when someone clicks a homenode button that produces some sort of silly message in the CB, the person had to take an affirmative step to cause it. Your "joke" was triggered merely by visiting your homenode -- a perfectly reasonable act for someone to take. It wasn't particularly funny, and the extra noise in the CB simply served to inflame the discussion further.

        yours,
        Michael
[reply]
      I find JavaScript very useful, and the only site that has casued me problems with it is PerlMonks.

      You apparently have not been around the web very long, then. Back in the bad old days before capability policies (which, incidentally, some quite popular browsers have not yet bothered to implement), the stupid JS stunts a few people around here pull on their homenodes would have seemed as nothing; back then, Javascript used to be able to easily crash your browser and/or your operating system, and with a bit more effort it could be made to do much worse things than that. I surfed with Javascript disabled for years.

      These days I generally surf with Javascript enabled, but limited by capability policies, but I still occasionally find myself having to turn it off to escape the rude effects of one site or another, and it is noteworthy that Perlmonks to date has not been one of the sites that has necessitated this; stupid stunts like automatically posting a message in the chatterbox are pointless and arguably rude, but they don't cause any tangible harm.

      I don't normally surf with Javascript disabled, but that's mostly because I prefer not to go through life paranoid. I don't lock my house at night either. So far I haven't been seriously hurt by either policy, but it is certainly possible that at some point I *could* be. Taking that risk is a decision that I make after weighing the relative merits of safety and convenience against probabilities.

      I tend to agree with tye that Perlmonks should be responsible and filter scripts out of all user-submitted content that isn't checked by hand by the site admins. But that will only protect you from being harmed by Javascript code here on Perlmonks; if you surf the rest of the web, with Javascript enabled, it won't protect you.

[reply]

        But that will only protect you from being harmed by Javascript code here on Perlmonks;

        And that's all we're asking for. I watch what websites I go to, and it's generally a select few where I don't have to worry about anything happening, and those are generally well known and well traversed sites. Perlmonks is a well known and established site; it should be the same way, in my opinion.

            -Bryan

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion