If you look back up to my first reply, I started it with

If you, as you claim, do have a real use case for Scope::Upper, I'm really interested in hearing about it.

This curiosity is my main drive, and I was hoping to find a real use case instead of some vague alludements.

I don't understand how the privilege to post a reply to your question can be considered misuse. But why do you think I would need it to see through the "sham of anonimity"?

I think the main conclusion to draw for you from this exchange is, that it is maybe not your nickname (or the user account you purport to represent), but your way of asking questions that provokes replies that you don't like. This may not be the answer you wanted, but in the end, neither of us got the answer we wanted in this thread.

-- neither of us got the answer we wanted in this thread.

I missed this piece of presumption. Actually, I did. From the only response that addressed the question I asked.

And finally, this

-- but your way of asking questions that provokes replies that you don't like.

Shows this

-- I don't understand how the privilege to post a reply to your question can be considered misuse. But why do you think I would need it to see through the "sham of anonimity"?

to be either the pretence of misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt at misdirection.

A truly Anonymous Monk can only ever post one question.

For you to assert that you have devined a pattern in the style of "questions" from an Anonymous Monk is absurd. One does not a pattern make.

So, to talk of "questions", and imply a pattern, you must associate this question, with previous questions assumed or known to be from the same source. You are not normally the assumptive kind, so the logical conclusion is that Co-rion crossed-referenced the IP of this Anonymous Monk with that of some logged-in user.

That's *misused privilege*.

Or maybe, you were informed by some other abusive God. Either way.

I'm sorry if you come to that conclusion. I took your sentences

But there is always someone, or multiple somones, that feel the need to try and impose their views on life, the universe and everything, on everyone else.

And that was why this thread was started anonymously.

... as indication that you are a repeat visitor of this site and wanted to not associate your account with that question. I also assumed that you had posted other questions using that account.

The assertion of any kind of patterns stems for me from your above statement, and not some investigation in our access logs.

If there is no such pattern as asserted by you, and you just are a first (and only-time) visitor, maybe the assertion of the pattern of

But there is always someone, or multiple somones, that feel the need to try and impose their views on life, the universe and everything, on everyone else.

... is something you need to accept as a fact of life, or at least, a fact of interacting with other people. As such, this is a profound insight but I'm not sure how it relates to the rest of this thread.

-- This curiosity is my main drive,

I have no desire to indulge your curiosity. I have enough of my own to deal with.

-- your way of asking questions that provokes replies that you don't like.

If you mean, asking only the question to which I want the answer, without providing extraneous information on which interefering busy-bodies can hang their coats, perhaps. But, it doesn't work because those same interfering busy-bodies will invent reasons to indulge themselves.

In this particular case, I have been using a solution to a particular problem for a while. I works, but has a flaw. I saw Scope::Upper and it sounded like a possible solution to that flaw, but I couldn't make it work, so I asked my question. As soon as tobyink posted his reply, I saw my misunderstanding, and realised that Scope::Upper could never provide the solution I was hoping for. Job done. Or should have been.

Instead. We get all these useless subthreads 992853, 992889, 992952 that could never be of help to me, because they make no attempt to answer the question I asked.

I do not give a flying fig whether you feel Guard is a better solution to your imagined application, than Scope::Upper.

I do not give a flying fig whether tye thinks his imagined application for Scope::Upper will "break encapsulation", despite that it could not for mine.

I have no interest in debating either. If I had wanted to solicite suggestions for a solution to my application, I would have asked that question. I did not.

I do not give a flying fig whether you or anyone considers that I have asked the wrong question. I ask the questions I ask, because that is what I want to know. I ask them in the way I do, because I want just that answer, not a debate about other approaches, alternative solutions, alternative questions.

If you don't know the answer to the question, don't answer it. If you do know, but don't want to answer (either it or me) that is fine too.