Re^7: Simple error

Just as you appear unable to distinguish humor from intimidation, you seems to have difficulty recognizing a difference between referencing a link covering many aspects of posting an effective question and explaining a narrow piece of same.

But your cynical outlook on the helpfulness, or lack thereof, in explaining a local norm -- brief code -- is, itself, unhelpful. In fact, within hours, I had a message from OP with thanks for the explanation of how to do better in the future (altho it appears that the edit was done by a janitor, not the OP).

Comment on Re^7: Simple error

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Simple error by Anonymous Monk on Jun 14, 2012 at 12:57 UTC
Just as you appear unable to distinguish humor from intimidation, you seems to have difficulty recognizing a difference between referencing a link covering many aspects of posting an effective question and explaining a narrow piece of same. You on the other hand appear to be a master troll But your cynical outlook on the helpfulness, or lack thereof, in explaining a local norm -- brief code -- is, itself, unhelpful. My outlook is unhelpful? What about my answer, was that helpful? In fact, within hours, I had a message from OP with thanks for the explanation of how to do better in the future (altho it appears that the edit was done by a janitor, not the OP). Yes, I believe you, Mrs NodeReaper's GF	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^8: Simple error
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 14, 2012 at 12:57 UTC

You on the other hand appear to be a master troll

But your cynical outlook on the helpfulness, or lack thereof, in explaining a local norm -- brief code -- is, itself, unhelpful.

My outlook is unhelpful?

What about my answer, was that helpful?

In fact, within hours, I had a message from OP with thanks for the explanation of how to do better in the future (altho it appears that the edit was done by a janitor, not the OP).

Yes, I believe you, Mrs NodeReaper's GF

[reply]