in reply to Re^13: Utter FUD!
in thread is ||= threadsafe?

I would certainly say

So the answer to my question is a resounding: No. You would not stand up at YAPC and make the same statement that Tye made.

So why on earth is your first contribution to this site in 2 1/2 months in support of an indefensible statement made by another monk?

He certainly doesn't need you to fight his battles.

But I don't see how you could possibly intend that to bring this thread to a close.

Simple. Because I thought that putting you the spot of having to repeat that indefensible statement would cause you to pause. It did, but not enough apparently.

You continue to argue against a blanket statement.

Yes. Because that is the, obviously patently untrue, statement that was made.

If Tye wished to qualify it, he's had ample opportunity to do so. I may have my suspicions about his reasoning, but it is not for me to put words in his mouth.

Just as I have my suspicions as to why you've suddenly popped up out of nowhere to join the argument.

There -- that ends this thread!

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^15: Utter FUD!
by ysth (Canon) on Oct 27, 2010 at 20:50 UTC
    You continue to argue against a blanket statement.
    Yes. Because that is the, obviously patently untrue, statement that was made.
    That period after "statement" in your "quote" of me was added by you... and you are doing the same thing to my sentence as you did to Tye's: picking a clause and arguing its truthfulness instead of arguing against the idea being expressed. It's some kind of bizarre anti-communication pattern.
    If Tye wished to qualify it, he's had ample opportunity to do so. I may have my suspicions about his reasoning, but it is not for me to put words in his mouth.
    If you aren't going to talk about suspicions and political intent, you could just not mention such things.
    Just as I have my suspicions as to why you've suddenly popped up out of nowhere to join the argument.
    I was messing with the database and wanted to examine a recent long thread to make sure I hadn't messed anything up. I saw statements being made that I disagreed with and in ways I disagreed with and voiced my disagreement. Pretty sinister, huh?
    There -- that ends this thread!
    I have just one more thing to add:

    Perl protects its internals by making full copies of its internals (the interpreter state and all data) -- emulating fork but less efficiently.

    --
    A math joke: r = | |csc(θ)|+|sec(θ)|-||csc(θ)|-|sec(θ)|| |
    Online Fortune Cookie Search
    Office Space merchandise
[reply]
      I have just one more thing to add:

      Then so do I.

      Perl protects its internals by making full copies of its internals

      Repetition (of anything, but especially FUD), is not a argument.

      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.
[reply]
      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom