Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:07:21 -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> <mailman.3914.1364503941.2939.python-list@python.org> <11ef1d36-0783-4cb2-b29f-9ae573ed7e47@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <11ef1d36-0783-4cb2-b29f-9ae573ed7e47@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.3975.1364598987.2939.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 73
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:42294

On 03/29/2013 02:26 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 03/28/2013 02:31 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> On 03/28/2013 12:54 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On 03/28/2013 01:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano 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.
>
> I don't get your point.
> I was pointing out the fallacy in Steven's logic (which you cut).
> How is your statement relevant to that?

Ah.  I thought you were saying that in all cases helpful strong language would be even more helpful if less strong.


>>> 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?
>
> Of course not.  People forget what they posted previously, change
> their mind, don't express what they intended perfectly, sometimes
> express a complex thought that the reader inaccurately perceives
> as contradictory, don't realize themselves that their thinking
> is contradictory, ...

I agree, which is why I resisted my own impulse to call him a liar; however, he has been harping on this subject for 
months now, so I would be suprised if he actually was surprised and had forgotten...


> Lying involves intent to deceive.  I haven't been following jmfauth's
> claims since they are not of interest to me, but going back and quickly
> looking at the posts that triggered the "liar" and "idiot" posts, I
> did not see anything that made me think that jmfauth was not sincere
> in his beliefs.  Being wrong and being sincere are not exclusive.
> Nor did Steven even try to justify the "liar" claim.  As to Mark
> Lawrence, that seemed like a pure "I don't like you" insult whose
> proper place is /dev/null.

After months of jmf's antagonist posts, I don't blame them.

>>>> 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?
>
> Don't ask me, ask Steven.  He was the one who wrote two sentences
> earlier, "...we want a...community where everyone is welcome."

Ah, right -- missed that!

--
~Ethan~