Wha'dya think they'd make of your chosen pseudonym T. ?

The need to simultaneously own up to the world that you're the one that blows the guy that sucks the goats; and hide.

Maybe it explains your confliction.

Must be worse since your bereavement

---

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

Ha ha, you replied! I thought you were smarter. Lets see if it works again.

TrollTroller Rex

Let's do the link less coyly, Re^3: Is Using Threads Slower Than Not Using Threads? (Deliberate errors). Your "Deliberate errors" accusation is factual incorrect.

But I won't migrate that argument to a different thread nor will I respond to such a childish remark in that thread. (Your conclusions regarding that node are entertaining as an example of stretching conjecture to extremes.)

I'm not sure where you dreamed up a "moral crusade", but I am not having one. I tried to have a technical conversation, you chose to do something else, I've tried a few times to explain. I don't even see much having to do with morals there.

From elsewhere in this thread:

Please--suspend your disbelief for just 2 minutes--go back read the whole post again in the light that I was not attempting to insult you.

Ah, that'd be a nice exercise. You should try it.

Based on the ramping up of the paranoid remarks, I doubt you can pull it off at this point, though. Frankly, that makes me sad. It seems you may think that I (and others) are "out to get you" (even on a crusade against you). I am not. I say that sincerely, though I doubt you will be capable of believing it any time soon.

I know you can read:

BUGS AND LIMITATIONS When share is used on arrays, hashes, array refs or hash refs, any data they contain will be lost.

Like I said, "Deliberate errors". And that is just typical of your tactics.

And don't put words in my mouth. No conspiracy, just bedazzled courtiers.

I no. I won't be responding further.

---

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

Obviously, I didn't read that section of the documentation. (If you want to argue that point further, then respond in the appropriate thread less childishly.)

I never said "conspiracy" and I never said that the people you see as out to get you were conspiring. Seeing a disorganized mob as bent on a crusade against you is still paranoid (as are other theories you coyly propose of late).

I won't be responding further.

Yes, responding to an honest attempt at communication without contorting it into an attack might require an open mind. And it saddens me that such is beyond you at this point.

- tye        

Regarding geography, no I did not notice any hint of irony. That's the problem with writing -- intent is often not clear when it comes to irony and sarcasm. I saw the literal version of what was written -- e.g. that you do not know that much about the Mid-west, and responded in kind.

Regarding Peoria, Illinois, IBM has a campus there, and since it's in the Mid-west, I thought you might be confusing Boca Raton and Poughkeepsie for it. I'm not sure how anyone goes from "Peoria, Illinois" to the sound of barfing, but it is a good example of how you tend to derail threads.

Anyway, sadly, given the direction this thread is headed in, there's little point in continuing it. :-(

I'm not sure how anyone goes from "Peoria, Illinois" to the sound of barfing,

Ill-y noise. (Indicating that I don't know what "Illinois" is, never mind "Peoria".)(It's called humour!)

no I did not notice any hint of irony.

The clues were: a) the direct/indirect people were in the exact opposite to my previous suggestion; b) "Or maybe that's just the way I remember it.".

Not to mention my explicitly stating that a) I didn't know where the Mid-West was; b) and that, my impressions of the "New Yorker" came from cheesy film stereotypes.

I was quite clearly making the point that the exact locations mentioned were immaterial to the discussion of cultural differences. And that any deep examination of the accuracy or otherwise of the location references was equally irrelevant.

and heads down the path of insults and flame wars.

There are no "insults", nor anything that should lead to "flame wars" in that post. None intended, nor implied. None at all. Really, zip, nada, zilch.

The entire post is about showing exactly how discourse can be misinterpreted. How offence can be taken, or not, at the whim of the reader, regardless of the writers intent.

Remember: "But they also apply the American stereotyping of the Brits, to our faces. And we laugh all the louder because it's not personal."

Please--suspend your disbelief for just 2 minutes--go back read the whole post again in the light that I was not attempting to insult you. That I was simply trying to make my case through that discourse. To show you how easy it is to misinterpret.

More successfully than I anticipated it seems :(

---

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

Illinois (where the "s" is silent, so the "nois" part rhymes with "boy") is a Midwestern state. It's a tall, fairly narrow state, with Chicago up at the top and then a whole lot of rural land in the rest of the state. There's a small grouping of cities in between Chicago and St. Louis, which is where Peoria is located. I used to hear lots of IBM related stories from a now retired co-worker who worked at that campus (among several places IBM sent him).

Anyway, for better or worse, your reputation for heated debates precedes you , which in turn affects how others interpret what you write in said debates. So while you may not have any ill intent, if a message can be read multiple ways, the more aggressive interpretation will often prevail, especially the further along in a debate.

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Ok, so I am reneging on my promise to be done with this discussion, since, against my better judgement, I followed a link out of the CB out of curiosity. And I find that you are now putting words into my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I've explicitly said ("Just as my accusers believe they are making a value judgements on behalf of all monks."), willfully misrepresenting other things I've said ("By their standards, even just telling someone they are wrong--even if they are--is a 'personal attack'.") and even accusing me of sock-puppetry. Ok, while typing this I realised that it's possible you were referring to the other T. you've been exchanging views with recently, and you oh-so-cleverly hide behind plurals instead of talking about individuals, but at this point I think I'll take a page out of your book and blindly attribute all this to malice directed at my person. Which leaves me only one thing to say:

You, sir, are a lying, hypocritical cunt.

Now I'm done.