On Thu, April 21, 2011 1:22 pm, Raymond Wan wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 01:25, Randal L. Schwartz <mer...@stonehenge.com> > wrote: >>>>>>> "Rob" == Rob Dixon <rob.di...@gmx.com> writes: >> To discredit this post, as well as your other claims, I'm actually going >> through the worst period in my life, exceeding my criminal arrest and >> conviction in 1995, which I had hoped would be the "forever lowest >> times". Â These past 18 months put that as a mere bump. Â If you've >> followed my blogs and tweets, you'd know the main details. >> >> Please leave your armchair psychology at home. > > > Well, not intending to put salt on the wound, but by the same token, > you also don't know whether the person you are writing to is also > going through a tough time. They [we] may not have a blog and are > probably not well-known enough to have a blog that other people will > read :-), but they may have problems too at the time and all they > wanted was to ask a Perl question. > > >> If someone comes here looking for a compliment for bad code simply >> because they've made an attempt, they're confused about what it takes to >> become a programmer. > > > Hmmmm, I more inclined to believe that programming is a fairly large > field. Large enough to have many definitions of what a programmer is > and not just this one here... > > >> observation is mad. Â But that requires far more interaction than a >> mailing list can provide. Â I generally only get one shot here to fix >> the >> problem, so I go straight for the fix. And *that's* how I'm different in >> a live situation, and get hired and rehired to teach. > > > Actually, I think there are many types of teachers and someone who > uses a completely different style from you can also be "hired and > rehired to teach". However, their students and clients will just be > people that are complete opposite from your audience. And...that's > not a problem because there are enough potential students to keep both > types of teachers (and other types in between) working. > > In any case, every time this issue comes up (annual event?), one thing > that I have not understood about this list is that there seems to be > only two groups of people here: the experts and everyone else. I > thought it would be more efficient to have multiple levels: experts > --> advanced --> intermediate --> beginner. That way if some newbie > does something that upsets the experts, rather than belittling > him/her, s/he will just skip the post and let some intermediate person > answer the question. > > It's like asking a university professor to teach preschool children. > The professor knows heaps but wouldn't it make more sense to let the > preschool teacher teach. Not saying this person is "lower class", but > probably has better experience and understanding about the kids. > > It seems how our education (regardless of the country we're from) > works; why couldn't it work for this list? If experts skipped really > newbie postings; they also might end up with a lower blood pressure in > the long run... > > Ray
Well put. Never thought of it that way... makes sense. I'm in many mailing lists, and when I was first getting up to speed with Linux, Perl, bash, etc, I was very active. I am still subscribed to many, but find myself just clicking on the interesting topics, etc, and ignore the simple ones, just for that reason, I feel there are many at that level that will and can answer them. Why would an expert in the field answer many of the questions in here if it gets them upset? This is a "beginners list", not advanced. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org http://learn.perl.org/
