Signal to noise ratio

[David Oswald]

Folks, I first want to thank all of the experts who have helped me along my
way toward crawling up from the ranks of Perl initiate to Perl novice (I
consider that growth). I couldn't have improved myself so quickly (nor
recognized how much longer and more pleasing the journey will be) without
your commentaries, without studying the documents both online and in paper
form that you have written, and without the help of your websites and Usenet
posts. Those of you who participate most actively in this Usenet group, and
in the Perl community in general, are appreciated and respected by those of
us who understand professionalism and the kind of widsom that can only come
from experience and adherence to the very rules of thumb that have made Perl
what it is today.

I feel that we have all allowed ourselves to be dragged down in a way that
diminishes the impact of our efforts to turn the gears of the Perl machine
forward in the direction of progress.

For me and probably a strong majority of this group's users, the group is
about a quest for knowledge, the honing of skills, the learning of the
conventions of Perl society (both social interaction and social
engineering), and to a large degree, personal satisfaction through progress.

We fall short by allowing the signal to noise ratio to go to that of CB in
the 70's. Hudson's posts have prompted a flurry of Usenet activity. Some
of that has been justifiable and essential to ensure that the collective
Perl machine stays properly lubricated free of sand and grime that would
gunk up the gears. But but just as a photographer uses a clean cloth to
remove specks of dust from his lens, we should exercise care in dusting the
lens of this macroscope (pun intended). A photographer knows that blowing
on a lens directly, or cleaning it with a dusty cloth will further injure
it, rather than achieving the desired effect.

The Hudson topic received the proper cleaning and maintenance many posts
ago, and the rest has been an exercise in cleaning with a dirty cloth. The
Hudson posts, and assorted replies now total in excess of 150. Hudson
himself is responsible for over 70. That is rediculous.

We don't want another "Matt's messed up script archive" working away at
gunking up the gears and dusting up the lens. But it's time to remember
that 99.9% of the script-kiddies lose interest and give up when they run out
of twinkies and Usenet adreneline, or when they bring their ISP's server
down with an accidental fork-bomb or security breech. Kicking against the
pricks is painful, swimming upstream tiring. Those who chose not to learn
the painful lessons will burn out and blow away in the wind. "Matt's" is
what we all want to prevent from happening. But if we spend more time
cleaning than running, we're lost.

So let's move on with what we are here for, and pay no attention to the
phoney behind the curtain. His magic is a hoax.

Dave


--
DJO

[hudson]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:50:34 -0700, "David Oswald"
<spamblock@junkmail.com> wrote:

>The
>Hudson posts, and assorted replies now total in excess of 150. Hudson
>himself is responsible for over 70. That is rediculous.

very sorry...man...!!!

don't worry....I got over it and won't be posting so much from now on
;-)

[hudson]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:50:34 -0700, "David Oswald"
<spamblock@junkmail.com> wrote:

>
>For me and probably a strong majority of this group's users, the group is
>about a quest for knowledge, the honing of skills, the learning of the
>conventions of Perl society (both social interaction and social
>engineering), and to a large degree, personal satisfaction through progress.

that's the whole deal...aint it? don't let these zombies take away
your search for knowledge....