«

187 <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> Tad McClellan wrote:
> > Pinocchio (aka: Fred Canis, aka: 187, aka: krakle...)
> > <> wrote:
>
> * removes himself from that list *
>
> I had a bad day, I don't normally type that bad, /please/ don't
> associate me with usenet holigans like that *shudders*

Eh... pinoccio? How's your nose?

Anno

On 15 Oct 2004 11:40:00 GMT, (Anno
Siegel) wrote:

>Geoff Cox <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>> On 14 Oct 2004 20:02:33 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur"
>> <> wrote:
>
>> >Again, no code.
>>
>> No need for any code this time! I see what you mean below and have got
>> that working now!
>
>You don't get it, do you?
>
>We want *you* to show your code so we don't have to spend time
>guessing what your problem may be. Did you really think Sinan
>was apologizing for not giving *you* code? How self-centered
>can you get?

Anno,

I appreciate the point you are making - but do keep calm! The text of
my message was sufficient to enable a comment which corrected my error
- why waste the other person's time with code if this is so?

It might be said that you reacted a little too quickly?! Personal
comments and anger really do not help.

Geoff








>
>Anno

Geoff Cox <> wrote in
news:

> On 15 Oct 2004 11:40:00 GMT, (Anno
> Siegel) wrote:
>
>>Geoff Cox <> wrote in
>>comp.lang.perl.misc:
>>> On 14 Oct 2004 20:02:33 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur"
>>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> >Again, no code.
>>>
>>> No need for any code this time! I see what you mean below and have
>>> got that working now!
>>
>>You don't get it, do you?
>>
>>We want *you* to show your code so we don't have to spend time
>>guessing what your problem may be. Did you really think Sinan
>>was apologizing for not giving *you* code? How self-centered
>>can you get?

> I appreciate the point you are making - but do keep calm! The text of
> my message was sufficient to enable a comment which corrected my error
> - why waste the other person's time with code if this is so?

Let's just clarify one point: You would not have been wasting my time had
you provided a working piece of code for me (or anyone else following the
thread). The fact that you did not do so is an insult.

If there is a situation where it is acceptable not to post code when
talking about code, I do not know of it.

My

>>> >Again, no code.

was meant to be reminder to YOU that you ought to provide code.

> It might be said that you reacted a little too quickly?! Personal
> comments and anger really do not help.

In this case, you deserve it.

Sinan.

On 15 Oct 2004 13:21:18 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur"
<> wrote:


>If there is a situation where it is acceptable not to post code when
>talking about code, I do not know of it.

Sinan,

You were kind enough to help me - so I must accept that I was wrong.

Please accept my apologies.

Geoff


>
>My
>
>>>> >Again, no code.
>
>was meant to be reminder to YOU that you ought to provide code.
>
>> It might be said that you reacted a little too quickly?! Personal
>> comments and anger really do not help.
>
>In this case, you deserve it.
>
>Sinan.

Geoff Cox <> wrote in
news::

> On 15 Oct 2004 13:21:18 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur"
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>If there is a situation where it is acceptable not to post code when
>>talking about code, I do not know of it.

> You were kind enough to help me - so I must accept that I was wrong.
>
> Please accept my apologies.

Thank you. But next time, please start by posting code. Make sure you have
fixed everything that

use strict;
use warnings;

tell you before posting the code.

Sinan.

Geoff Cox <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> On 15 Oct 2004 11:40:00 GMT, (Anno
> Siegel) wrote:
>
> >Geoff Cox <> wrote in
> comp.lang.perl.misc:
> >> On 14 Oct 2004 20:02:33 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur"
> >> <> wrote:
> >
> >> >Again, no code.
> >>
> >> No need for any code this time! I see what you mean below and have got
> >> that working now!
> >
> >You don't get it, do you?
> >
> >We want *you* to show your code so we don't have to spend time
> >guessing what your problem may be. Did you really think Sinan
> >was apologizing for not giving *you* code? How self-centered
> >can you get?
>
> Anno,
>
> I appreciate the point you are making - but do keep calm! The text of
> my message was sufficient to enable a comment which corrected my error
> - why waste the other person's time with code if this is so?

Ah. You got a good reply on a bad question, because someone else
compensated for your lack of effort. And that proves there was
nothing wrong with the question.

"Waste other peoples time with code", indeed. Yes, it takes effort
to prepare code that demonstrates your problem. A mere verbal
description is easier. The person who answers your question will
(almost always) need such code even before beginning to think
about a solution in earnest. So it's either you write that code,
or we have to do it. What, do you suppose, is the preferred
arrangement?

Exploiting a newsgroup by minimizing your own effort so that you
still get useful replies is not a good long-term strategy.

Anno

> It might be said that you reacted a little too quickly?! Personal

No. You have been around for a while.

Anno

On 15 Oct 2004 13:21:18 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur"
<> wrote:


>Let's just clarify one point: You would not have been wasting my time had
>you provided a working piece of code for me (or anyone else following the
>thread). The fact that you did not do so is an insult.

Sinan,

on reflection ...

I have offered you my apology which I stand by and will certainly
provide code when asking a code question in any future postings, but

>The fact that you did not do so is an insult.

I do think you are wrong to use the term insult. The first definition
I came across gives

insult - a deliberately offensive act.

Let me asure you that I was not doing this. Apparently I made a
mistake, certainly you thought so, but I thought my problem was
sufficiently elementary that the code was not needed.

It was not my intention to insult you. Perhaps you might withdraw that
comment?

Cheers

Geoff

On 15 Oct 2004 14:38:17 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur"
<> wrote:

>Geoff Cox <> wrote in
>news: :
>
>> On 15 Oct 2004 13:21:18 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If there is a situation where it is acceptable not to post code when
>>>talking about code, I do not know of it.
>
>> You were kind enough to help me - so I must accept that I was wrong.
>>
>> Please accept my apologies.
>
>Thank you. But next time, please start by posting code. Make sure you have
>fixed everything that

Sinan,

My "on reflection" posting passed your comment re "insult". Thank you
for this message - please do also accept that I had no intention
whatever of insulting you.

Let's just say that I will not forget this exhange and will be more
careful in future!

Cheers

Geoff

Geoff Cox <> wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2004 13:21:18 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur"
><> wrote:


>
> I have offered you my apology which I stand by and will certainly
> provide code when asking a code question in any future postings, but
>
>>The fact that you did not do so is an insult.
>
> I do think you are wrong to use the term insult. The first definition
> I came across gives
>
> insult - a deliberately offensive act.


What have folks that have observed your posts here seen?

You have been asked many times to follow the guidelines,
yet you come back again and again without following them.

It appears as a deliberately offensive act whether deliberate or not.

We can only go by what we see.


> Let me asure you that I was not doing this.


It sure looks that way from where I am sitting.


> Apparently I made a
> mistake,


And then made it again.

And then made it again.

And then made it again.

People get annoyed when you ignore them.


> Perhaps you might withdraw that
> comment?


I wouldn't if it was my comment.

If you dont' want to be seen as rude, then don't do rude things!


--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas

Anno Siegel wrote:
> 187 <> wrote in
> comp.lang.perl.misc:
>> Tad McClellan wrote:
>>> Pinocchio (aka: Fred Canis, aka: 187, aka: krakle...)
>>> <> wrote:
>>
>> * removes himself from that list *
>>
>> I had a bad day, I don't normally type that bad, /please/ don't
>> associate me with usenet holigans like that *shudders*
>
> Eh... pinoccio? How's your nose?

A little runny lately (bad cold.) My name is Al though. Not knowing the
past deal is here (maybe I'll run a search over at Google's archives.
What ever it is, I want everyone to know my name was incorrectly placed
in Tad's little list (not sure if it was in jest or not.) any ways,
since I know I'm not a part of that, it doesn't matter much on my end,
so in the words of Paul Harvey, "Goooo'Day?!"