in reply to Re^3: A (highly) "ethical" use for for Perl
in thread A (highly) "ethical" use for for Perl
Then next time don't consider it with a reason of "useless". "Useless" doesn't tell me anything bad about a node. It tells me that the person considering the node could not think of much good about it but also was at a loss to actually describe anything bad about it.
And the person doing the considering is the one who must take the most care in evaluating what should be done. So if the considerer can't come up with any offense beyond "useless", my first reaction is to want to remove the consideration. When I investigated this one, I saw a reply from the considerer and it just emphasized the "useless" angle and went on to claim to not even know what the code did. So voting "keep" was an easy choice for me since "deleting" should require "harm".
- tye
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^5: A (highly) "ethical" use for for Perl (how not to consider)
by jryan (Vicar) on Dec 25, 2004 at 06:41 UTC | |
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 25, 2004 at 07:48 UTC | |
by jryan (Vicar) on Dec 25, 2004 at 21:35 UTC |