1. It might turn into a reasonable discussion on compactness vs. complexity if people don't reflexively consider-for-delete it when they read the author's name.
2. Ignoring uncomfortable points of view like "Perl is losing popularity" isn't exactly the healthiest way of fighting them.
3. "I don't like Wassercrat" isn't a good reason to try to reap a given post.
4. It's bound to provoke a "community standards vs. free speech" debate, either in the CB or a set of posts, and lower the signal:noise ratio far more than just letting this post slide.
5. It'd be a waste of the editors' time.
6. There is no reason number six.
7. Nobody who's advocated deleting this node has given a good reason beyond shouting "it sucks!" as loud as they can. (I'm not considering dragonchild's reply here, as it at least begins to address the node's content.)
   Edit: Clarification: dragonchild's post doesn't advocate deleting the OP, which is why I'm not considering it. It also happens to attack the OP's content, which I think is a nice touch. I'm not ignoring it simply because it's a counterexample to my argument. :-)

Or were you just being sarcastic, hoping to score some points based on Wassercrat's bad reputation?

This "consider-for-delete" stuff scares me!!! ... In my opinion, quite too many people voted to delete Dragonchilds and Wassercrats node. I am not that happy with both nodes, but the intolerance I see in "nodes to consider" is pretty scary.

Please, vote for "keep" in the "nodes to consider" section, even if you ++ or -- one of the authors. Help to keep this place an open discussion forum. IMHO, Perl monks easily can afford one or two trolls without harm.

This "consider-for-delete" stuff scares me!!! ... In my opinion, quite too many people voted to delete Dragonchilds and Wassercrats node. I am not that happy with both nodes, but the intolerance I see in "nodes to consider" is pretty scary.

I voted keep on both, but then, I think it's important that people can say annoying, uninformed and/or rude things here.

I can imagine people not wanting obvious trollery, irrelevant posts or rude language, though, and I expect them to vote for deletion if they see it.

As I recall, the "keep" votes are in the majority at the moment, so please keep calm.

Joost

"What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"

Here you go.

Of course, you may feel (as the considerer apparently did) that this is "unarguably and undeniably trollish", but I disagree that it meets a reasonable standard for deletion.

Oh, I thought it was more "Is *clearly* inflammatory, abusive, and otherwise over the edge of professional disagreement" than "unarguably and undeniably trollish".

I would add though, that it doesn't have to be inflammatory AND over the edge of professional disagreement to be abusive and thus worth deleting. Abusive things should not be kept, regardless of their other merits.

Well, you could argue inflammatory, though honestly I'm dubious. Abusive, though? There's only one node in this thread I'd call abusive, and the root node ain't it. Stupid, very much so, but that (thank goodness) isn't grounds for reaping.

I'd stick with trollish, in the pre-slashdot sense, if I were arguing for its deletion, but honestly I don't see a point to deleting it. What harm does it do? Other than make people with better things to do waste time arguing over its deletability, of course... ;-)




---

If God had meant us to fly, he would *never* have given us the railroads.
    --Michael Flanders