Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #59395
| Date | 2013-11-14 11:50 +1100 |
|---|---|
| From | Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> |
| Subject | Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python |
| References | <52840fb7$0$29975$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2579.1384396700.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 13Nov2013 23:48, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> As a community, it is difficult to balance the conflicting needs here. If
> we ignore Nikos completely, we appear unfriendly and indifferent to those
> asking for help. If we answer his questions, we encourage him to post. It
> is hard to find the right balance, if there even is a right balance, and
> people can have differing ideas of what that right balance is.
For myself, I try to:
- reply to interesting questions if I can help
- ignore the non-technical content (flames etc)
just trim it and ignore it
try to set a good example in the reply without berating the flamer
- on repeated flamage, try "please don't flame; try to stay technical; etc"
but always with some accompanying techincal response
- eventually give up and ignore threads or subthreads involving the
person hurting my brain
I think etiquette criticism that is a small aside in a technical
response, if not done frequently, should be useful; it is a bit of
push back without derailing the discussion. Etiquette criticism on
its own, if on-list, I think derails the discussion and leads more
readily to further bickering. And aggressive criticism is even more
damaging that criticism alone.
Trying not to feed the trolls,
--
Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>
A Newbie: I was not asking the question to start any flames. [...] Nobody
has to get to the low levels of argument and be rude to each other.
Paul Tsai <pault@hurricane.seas.ucla.edu>:
Oh yes we do, grasshopper. It's a requisite for rec.moto. One must
transcend the infinity of illussions before getting the real techno whiz
answers to questions of such profundity as yours.
John Stafford <stafford@ultra1.Winona.MSUS.edu>:
No, he's right. After reading r.m. for a couple of years, I feel capable
of being rude to ANYONE at ANY level of argument. In fact the higher they
come, the harder they fall.....
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python bob gailer <bgailer@gmail.com> - 2013-11-13 15:35 -0500
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-13 23:48 +0000
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2013-11-14 10:47 +1000
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-14 01:04 +0000
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-11-13 20:14 -0500
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2013-11-14 11:50 +1100
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-14 09:33 +0100
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python Chuck Quast <quastdog@gmail.com> - 2013-11-13 16:10 -0800
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-11-13 16:41 -0800
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-14 11:50 +1100
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2013-11-14 16:13 +0000
Re: Most discussion on comp.lang.python is about developing with Python Peter Pearson <ppearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2013-11-14 21:26 +0000
csiph-web