Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:31:56 -0700
From: Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]
References: <mailman.3703.1364248275.2939.python-list@python.org> <a52fbe9d-db14-4ed2-bb49-adfb4b56f973@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <mailman.3771.1364324590.2939.python-list@python.org> <0b779c80-4f50-4716-8c30-47755c15f304@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> <kit1kg$g2u$1@ger.gmane.org> <nad-98F0A4.17004226032013@news.gmane.org> <kitdqr$4m4$2@ger.gmane.org> <nad-8CB9C0.18315026032013@news.gmane.org> <mailman.3805.1364385073.2939.python-list@python.org> <5153a12d$0$29998$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.3845.1364441182.2939.python-list@python.org> <d2cc443a-e049-42ed-abc6-66b5ea600fe7@j1g2000pbq.googlegroups.com> <5153d313$0$29984$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <0b6be19c-ff11-4e24-a7dc-fec0af411393@kw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <5153f5ce$0$29984$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <fca3aa1f-86a7-4c96-88c2-893ec95ba306@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <fca3aa1f-86a7-4c96-88c2-893ec95ba306@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.3914.1364503941.2939.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 79
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:42191

On 03/28/2013 12:54 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 03/28/2013 01:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:42:18 -0700, rusi wrote:
> For someone who delights in pointing out the logical errors
> of others you are often remarkably sloppy in your own logic.
>
> Of course language can be both helpful and excessively strong.
> That is the case when language less strong would be
> equally or more helpful.

It can also be the case when language less strong would be useless.


> Further, "liar" is both so non-objective and so pejoratively
> emotive that it is a word much more likely to be used by
> someone interested in trolling than in a serious discussion,
> so most sensible people here likely would not bite.

Non-objective?  If today poster B says X, and tomorrow poster B says s/he was unaware of X until just now, is not "liar" 
a reasonable conclusion?


>> I hope that we all agree that we want a nice, friendly, productive
>> community where everyone is welcome.
>
> I hope so too but it is likely that some people want a place
> to develop and assert some sense of influence, engage in verbal
> duels, instigate arguments, etc.  That can be true of regulars
> here as well as drive-by posters.
>
>> But some people simply cannot or
>> will not behave in ways that are compatible with those community values.
>> There are some people whom we *do not want here*
>
> In other words, everyone is NOT welcome.

Correct.  Do you not agree?


>> -- spoilers and messers,
>> vandals and spammers and cheats and liars and trolls and crackpots of all
>> sorts.
>
> Where those terms are defined by you and a handful of other
> voracious posters.  "Troll" in particular is often used to
> mean someone who disagrees with the borg mind here, or who
> says anything negative about Python, or who due attitude or
> lack of full English fluency do not express themselves in
> a sufficiently submissive way.

I cannot speak for the borg mind, but for myself a troll is anyone who continually posts rants (such as RR & XL) or who 
continuously hijacks threads to talk about their pet peeve (such as jmf).


>> We only disagree as to the best way to make it clear to them that
>> they are not welcome so long as they continue their behaviour.
>
> No, we disagree on who fits those definitions and even
> how tolerant we are to those who do fit the definitions.
> The policing that you and a handful of other self-appointed
> net-cops try to do is far more obnoxious that the original
> posts are.

I completely disagree, and I am grateful to those who bother to take the time to continually point out the errors from 
those posters and to warn newcomers that those posters should not be believed.


> Believe or not, most of the rest of us here are smart enough to
> form our own opinions of such posters without you and the other
> c.l.p truthsquad members telling us what to think.

If one of my first few posts on c.l.p netted a response from a troll I would greatly appreciate a reply from one of the 
regulars saying that was a troll so I didn't waste time trying to use whatever they said, or be concerned that the 
language I was trying to use and learn was horribly flawed.

If the "truthsquad" posts are so offensive to you, why don't you kill-file them?

--
~Ethan~