[nylug-talk] Perl Tutorial in youtube.

[sixtyfourbeets]

> The problem is that you're horrible at expressing what you mean.

The problem is your reading comprehension.

Here is my original response to Ron (something I wanted to avoid because this
conversation became idiotic when you replied to it the way you did):
"It didnt surprise me that Perl functions in a windowz environment.

But what irritates me is he translate his experience with ms into interpreting
how Perl works.  He calls the shebang the 'sharp' sign and says that the
/usr/bin/perl line is commented out and does not get executed.
I think it would be safe to say that for the average Linux user these mistakes
would not go unnoticed.  For most windowz environment programmers those
mistakes would be not only accepted as truth but gospel too.

Steve M"

Demonstrate to me where I showed a lack of knoweldge of the shebang
directive?
Demonstrate to me where I was angry or expressed anger?


> What this looks like is you comparing some subset of everyone on this list
> that's ever responded to one of your emails to the most gestapo-like
> fear and psychological torture as performed by the KGB during the
> soviet era.

What I was trying to demonstrate was directed at you and not to 'everyone
on this list' or a subset thereof.
What you should do is reread what I wrote to Ron and then reread it
again and try to
demonstrate to me how I expressed anger about that tutorial and
where I demonstrated a lack of knowledge.

> Now, if that's actually what you meant to say, then shame
> on you for not knowing the difference. If that's *not* what you meant
> to say, then it's your challenge to say what you mean in a way that's
> clear enough that I'm not likely to get that impression.

I knew that contrast was going to be over your head.

> The problem, in case you haven't got it after more than 5 years on
> this list, is that you tend to be terrible at asing what you need, you
> only ask for what you want to hear.

Yes of course, everytime I post.  That has *always* been
the case.

No Peter, the problem is that when someone
calls you on being wrong you never admit to being wrong because your
superficial ego will not allow it.  You would rather split hairs and annoy
the life out anyone who calls you on being wrong rather than admit
that you were wrong or even better still let the matter go and.
Even by just letting something go you can still save your fragile ego from
being bruised.

Demonstrate to me where I showed anger(at the time) or lack of knowledge
in my response to Ron?
Are you going to try to redefine the word 'irritate' to mean anger?
So you're writing your own dictionary?

> Often when you are asked for
> clarification, or are corrected, you respond with an ad-hominem
> attack, so this has formed the perception of you.

Okie doke.  I have lived up to your narrowminded expectation.

Apparently you seem to have a problem with looking up posts on your own mailing
lists so I'll repost here my original response to you to save you the effort:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The # sign is called the "sharp" in music circles, and so it has a
slightly more musical ring than "hash", "pound", "comment",
"tick-tack-toe" and it also lends it self to the term "sharp-bang" and
from there "sh-bang" for the #! construct. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebang_(Unix) for exhausting detail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I am very aware of the different usages the '#' has served,
so I'll just assume you are going through the trouble to explain this for
the benefit of others on this list who may not know.

He refers to the '#' not in a musical or *nix context but a micrusoft context.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should provide him with feedback noting that the #! is an
extremely standard hack on *nix (including cygwin) and ask hime to
mention it in the video.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did already.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, I really sounded 'angry' in that one, almost as 'angry' as my
response to Ron.

Now this thread has evolved into a Clinton like trial when they caught
him doing
what he did in the Oval Office.
Lets define angry, lets define irritating, lets define the word 'a'.....

Hoooray for Peter, you win.  Yay!  Now you and everyone whose felt
wronged by my big bad scary posts dance around in circles holding hands
to celebrate.

All the best,(~!)

Steve M