Re^5: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

I've "grokked it"; I just completely disagree with it. And so do a lot of other people here.

I understand that this place is "not a democracy" (though why its not is another leading question), but surely the weight of numbers of the current, regular participants should count for something?

And a final thought for you:

Perhaps, if this place was (slightly) less proscribed and introverted; more open to Monk's wider, and evolving programming roles, interests and requirements; more of the once very active, now sorely missed, old guard might still be around; and the participation rate here wouldn't be falling year on year.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Comment on Re^5: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 07, 2015 at 15:24 UTC
Ok, without getting into a spitting contest about who misunderstands what, let me try to boil this down: Sections are not topical. Sections are not topical (with the exception of PMD). They have never been topical. And the trend over the years, which reflects and reinforces this fact, is for sections to be removed (deprecated/disabled) rather than created. Look at the existing sections: SoPW, Meditations, CUFP (which is what Snippets and Catacombs were deprecated to), Obfu, Poetry, Tutorials, Categorized Q&A, and News. How are any of these topical? They're not. So introducing a new section based on topicality (even if it's "O.T.") breaks the schema. I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.	[reply]
Re^7: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 07, 2015 at 15:42 UTC
So introducing a new section based on topicality (even if it's "O.T.") breaks the schema. So? The "schema" is important why? There's all that stuff up there which is for the 'topic':Perl; and this bit over here for:anything else. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked	[reply]
Re^8: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 07, 2015 at 18:07 UTC
Your illogic speaks for itself.	[reply]
Re^9: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 07, 2015 at 18:25 UTC
Re^10: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 07, 2015 at 21:27 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^7: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by ww (Archbishop) on Jun 08, 2015 at 20:13 UTC
"... Obfu, Poetry, Tutorials, Categorized Q&A, and News. Those are not (he asks, incredulously!) "topical?" What then are the constraints on your definition of "topical?" Spirit of the Monastery	[reply] [d/l]
Re^8: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 08, 2015 at 20:36 UTC
Really? If I say "I've written a poem", you can tell what the poem is about? If I say "Hey, I have a bit of news", you know what the news is about? If I say "Please review the tutorial I just wrote", you know the subject of the tutorial?	[reply]
Re^9: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by ww (Archbishop) on Jun 08, 2015 at 23:21 UTC
Re^10: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 09, 2015 at 03:43 UTC


No such thing as a small change
	PerlMonks

Re^5: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Sections are not topical.