You continue to argue against a blanket statement.

Yes. Because that is the, obviously patently untrue, statement that was made.

That period after "statement" in your "quote" of me was added by you... and you are doing the same thing to my sentence as you did to Tye's: picking a clause and arguing its truthfulness instead of arguing against the idea being expressed. It's some kind of bizarre anti-communication pattern.

If Tye wished to qualify it, he's had ample opportunity to do so. I may have my suspicions about his reasoning, but it is not for me to put words in his mouth.

If you aren't going to talk about suspicions and political intent, you could just not mention such things.

Just as I have my suspicions as to why you've suddenly popped up out of nowhere to join the argument.

I was messing with the database and wanted to examine a recent long thread to make sure I hadn't messed anything up. I saw statements being made that I disagreed with and in ways I disagreed with and voiced my disagreement. Pretty sinister, huh?

There -- that ends this thread!

I have just one more thing to add:

Perl protects its internals by making full copies of its internals (the interpreter state and all data) -- emulating fork but less efficiently.