Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #84036 > unrolled thread

Random ALL CAPS posts on this group

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Luke Tomaneng <luketomaneng@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 16:15 -0800
    Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 11:22 +1100
      Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 16:31 -0800
    Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 16:38 -0800
      Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 12:50 +1100
        Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 19:50 -0800
          Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 14:58 +1100
      Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-01-20 13:15 +1100
        Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 20:06 -0800
          Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Paul Rudin <paul.nospam@rudin.co.uk> - 2015-01-20 14:14 +0000
          RE: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group "Clayton Kirkwood" <crk@godblessthe.us> - 2015-01-20 09:53 -0800
        Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 22:50 +1100
          Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 23:03 +1100
            Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 19:34 -0800
          Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-01-24 07:13 +1100
          Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-01-24 07:31 +1100
    Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-20 11:40 +1100
    Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-20 02:48 +0000
    Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 23:25 +0000
    Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 14:40 -0800
      Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-01-23 20:08 -0500
      Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-01-24 10:32 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#84036 — Random ALL CAPS posts on this group

Has anyone noticed these? There have been about three of them recently and they don't seem to have anything to do with Python at all. Does anyone know if there is a good reason they are here? 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#84038

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Luke Tomaneng <luketomaneng@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone noticed these? There have been about three of them recently and they don't seem to have anything to do with Python at all. Does anyone know if there is a good reason they are here?
>

I haven't seen them. My guess is they're straight-up spam; just ignore
them, or mark them as spam if your client supports it.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84041

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 5:52:54 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Luke Tomaneng  wrote:
> > Has anyone noticed these? There have been about three of them recently and they don't seem to have anything to do with Python at all. Does anyone know if there is a good reason they are here?
> >
> 
> I haven't seen them. My guess is they're straight-up spam; just ignore
> them, or mark them as spam if your client supports it.
> 
> ChrisA

In google groups you can mark spam by clicking the tiny downward triangle next
to the Reply-arrow -> "Report abuse" -> spam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84043

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 6:16:13 PM UTC-6, Luke Tomaneng wrote:
> Has anyone noticed [uppercase post content]? There have
> been about three of them recently and they don't seem to
> have anything to do with Python at all. Does anyone know
> if there is a good reason they are here?

A "good reason"...? Nope.

Using all-caps when writing is understood as shouting. I
sometimes use caps myself on intermittent words that need
special emphasis, but using nothing but caps is so annoying
that most people won't even bother to read your posts.

Apparently the author has something "so important" to say,
they he thinks he needs to "shout from the rafters" so
everybody can hear his "important message".  Although, he's
failed to notice that this is a group who's primary focus is
the Python Programming language, or at minimum, a discussion
of technical issues, and so most people are not going to be
interested -- and by "most" i mean *ALL*. ;-)

However, as is the case with most of these "troll-spammers",
the author is most likely posting this crap to multiple
message boards in hopes that someone will engage him or
click one of his malware installing links. Just ignore them.

That's the beauty of free speech: "We have right to be
annoyed, and the author has the right not to give a damn".
The only alternative is fascist censorship, and I'll happily
endure these annoyances to prevent that! You see, with
fascism you just trade one annoying jerk who has no power,
for another annoying jerk who has the absolute power of the
state behind him -- and you know the old adage about power
and corruption don't you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84049

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's the beauty of free speech: "We have right to be
> annoyed, and the author has the right not to give a damn".
> The only alternative is fascist censorship, and I'll happily
> endure these annoyances to prevent that!

Free speech also gives the freedom to not listen. Maybe it's less
trouble to skip them manually than to filter them out reliably, but
you do still have that option.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84054

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:55:11 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > That's the beauty of free speech: "We have right to be
> > annoyed, and the author has the right not to give a damn".
> > The only alternative is fascist censorship, and I'll happily
> > endure these annoyances to prevent that!
> 
> Free speech also gives the freedom to not listen. Maybe it's less
> trouble to skip them manually than to filter them out reliably, but
> you do still have that option.

Agreed. Listening is not compulsory. Fingers stuck firmly in
the ear canals or utilizing the natural phenomenon that sound
waves tend to diminish over distances, or when passing
through physical obstructions, are all effective techniques!
Of course the "kill file" has such a gloriously revengeful
sound to it though! ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84055

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course the "kill file" has such a gloriously revengeful
> sound to it though! ;-)

http://bofh.ntk.net/BOFH/0000/bastard-sm2.php

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84050

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Rick Johnson
> <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's the beauty of free speech: "We have right to be annoyed, and
> > the author has the right not to give a damn". The only alternative
> > is fascist censorship, and I'll happily endure these annoyances to
> > prevent that!
>
> Free speech also gives the freedom to not listen.

Freedom of expression entails an obligation on the state to not quash
anyone's expression. It does not affect anyone who is not the state; it
imposes no obligation on the PSF.

Freedom of expression has no implication that anyone else is obligated
to listen, as you say. It also has no implication that anyone is
obligated to carry that expression further.

So a forum such as this can block obnoxious spam, and that choice does
not impact anyone's freedom of expression.

-- 
 \         “I planted some bird seed. A bird came up. Now I don't know |
  `\                                  what to feed it.” —Steven Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84056

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:16:01 PM UTC-6, Ben Finney wrote:
> Freedom of expression entails an obligation on the state
> to not quash anyone's expression. It does not affect
> anyone who is not the state; it imposes no obligation on
> the PSF. [...] So a forum such as this can block obnoxious
> spam, and that choice does not impact anyone's freedom of
> expression.

Ben, i know we have not agreed much in the past, and you may
be thinking that i intend to pick a fight with you here (and
i don't), however i implore you to give more thought to the
vital importance of free expression.

I believe that free speech is so important, so vital to the
existence of free societies, that it's practice *MUST*
extend far beyond the boundaries of the state's rule, and be
fostered by *ANY* group who is in the public domain.

No one here would justify a public business refusing to
serve or employ a person based on race, religion, sex, or
otherwise. So why would you so easily discriminate against
speech?

I agree that these spam posts are annoying, but that is not
enough of an excuse to start limiting people's speech in a
*PUBLIC* forum. If python-list were a private group for
"members only", then by all means make up whatever rules you
want to. But when shared publicly, we have a duty to support
freedom for *ALL*. We must suffer the annoyances if we want
to enjoy freedom for all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84070

Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> writes:


> No one here would justify a public business refusing to
> serve or employ a person based on race, religion, sex, or
> otherwise.

Depends on what you mean by "or otherwise".

> So why would you so easily discriminate against speech?

People discriminate amongst prospective employees on the basis of what
the say all the time. It's the principle method by which you assess
candidates.


Freedom of expression is not about requiring others to publish your
words. It would be completely impractical - where would it end? Your own
slot on prime time TV to rant as you choose?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84078

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Python-list [mailto:python-list-
>bounces+crk=godblessthe.us@python.org] On Behalf Of Rick Johnson
>Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 8:06 PM
>To: python-list@python.org
>Subject: Re: Random ALL CAPS posts on this group
>
>On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:16:01 PM UTC-6, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Freedom of expression entails an obligation on the state to not quash
>> anyone's expression. It does not affect anyone who is not the state;
>> it imposes no obligation on the PSF. [...] So a forum such as this can
>> block obnoxious spam, and that choice does not impact anyone's freedom
>> of expression.
>
>Ben, i know we have not agreed much in the past, and you may be thinking
>that i intend to pick a fight with you here (and i don't), however i
>implore you to give more thought to the vital importance of free
>expression.
>
>I believe that free speech is so important, so vital to the existence of
>free societies, that it's practice *MUST* extend far beyond the
>boundaries of the state's rule, and be fostered by *ANY* group who is in
>the public domain.
>
>No one here would justify a public business refusing to serve or employ
>a person based on race, religion, sex, or otherwise. So why would you so
>easily discriminate against speech?
>
>I agree that these spam posts are annoying, but that is not enough of an
>excuse to start limiting people's speech in a
>*PUBLIC* forum. If python-list were a private group for "members only",
>then by all means make up whatever rules you want to. But when shared
>publicly, we have a duty to support freedom for *ALL*. We must suffer
>the annoyances if we want to enjoy freedom for all.
>--
>https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
This is not a public forum; it ia quasi-public forum. It has a structure and
understanding of what the topics are. Freedom of speech does not include
anytime and anyplace. This is a captive audience and we can't choose what
some fool is going to bore us with. Yes we can hit the delete key in one
form or another. As much as I don't want to hear our Dear Leader tonight, I
will choose to listen. (and then ridicule:<)) But I don't want some psycho
Islam Terrorist to stand up and commandeer the TSOTU speech just because he
believes that he has the right to drivel on and on. We all agree that that
is not the time, place, or topic for the speech. In civilized society, being
a captive audience is not really associated with free speech. In civilized
society we have a time and a place for a topic, and those that want to hear
the pontificator are free to listen. You don't have the right to come in to
my house and drivel: it is not the right time or place.

Clayton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84339

Ben Finney wrote:

> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Rick Johnson
>> <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > That's the beauty of free speech: "We have right to be annoyed, and
>> > the author has the right not to give a damn". The only alternative
>> > is fascist censorship, and I'll happily endure these annoyances to
>> > prevent that!
>>
>> Free speech also gives the freedom to not listen.
> 
> Freedom of expression entails an obligation on the state to not quash
> anyone's expression. It does not affect anyone who is not the state; it
> imposes no obligation on the PSF.

By this reasoning, you would be perfectly comfortable with a state of
affairs where a media monopoly suppressed any and all dissenting
viewpoints, provided that it was a *privately owned* monopoly and not the
government. To quote Bill Cole:

    Here in the US, we are so schizoid and deeply opposed to 
    government censorship that we insist on having unaccountable
    private parties to do it instead.


Since I am pretty sure that you don't actually consider private censorship
to be a good thing, perhaps we can agree that the question of free speech
is a little more complicated than just the state versus non-state.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84341

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> Freedom of expression entails an obligation on the state to not quash
>> anyone's expression. It does not affect anyone who is not the state; it
>> imposes no obligation on the PSF.
>
> By this reasoning, you would be perfectly comfortable with a state of
> affairs where a media monopoly suppressed any and all dissenting
> viewpoints, provided that it was a *privately owned* monopoly and not the
> government. To quote Bill Cole:
>
>     Here in the US, we are so schizoid and deeply opposed to
>     government censorship that we insist on having unaccountable
>     private parties to do it instead.
>
>
> Since I am pretty sure that you don't actually consider private censorship
> to be a good thing, perhaps we can agree that the question of free speech
> is a little more complicated than just the state versus non-state.

It's definitely not "state vs non-state". Freedom of expression should
allow me to say anything I like in my own home, but it doesn't
guarantee that I can walk into someone else's place of business and
start insulting the customers. Or, more strictly, he has the right to
throw me out, and I can't hide behind "freedom of speech" as a right
to say whatever I like.

But he has that right because I'm in his place of business. I'm fully
allowed to leave, and say my piece somewhere else. It's even more
obvious when he has to expend resources to allow my voice to be heard;
not every letter to the editor will be published in the newspaper, for
instance, and nobody would expect them all to be. Yes, the newspaper
is quite possibly biased in its selection of which to print; that's
just something you have to accept.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84429

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 6:05:02 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> It's definitely not "state vs non-state". Freedom of
> expression should allow me to say anything I like in my
> own home

I also hereby declare that man should be free to ponder
thoughts in his own mind, and sing in his own shower,
and watch his own TV, and even yank his own wank! 

Now hurry along Chris. MAKE HASTE! We must liberate the
people of this world with knowledge of these newly found
rights!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84395

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Freedom of expression entails an obligation on the state to not
> > quash anyone's expression. It does not affect anyone who is not the
> > state; it imposes no obligation on the PSF.
>
> By this reasoning, you would be perfectly comfortable with a state of
> affairs where a media monopoly […]

What in the above makes you think I'd be at all comfortable with a media
monopoly?

Not so. Rather, my objection to monopolisation of media is rooted in
concerns other than freedom of expression.

Or, in the terms I used above: It is not freedom of expression which
imposes the obligation to avoid monopolisation of media.

-- 
 \     “Oh, I realize it's a penny here and a penny there, but look at |
  `\      me: I've worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme |
_o__)                                          poverty.” —Groucho Marx |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84398

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Freedom of expression entails an obligation on the state to not
> > quash anyone's expression. It does not affect anyone who is not the
> > state; it imposes no obligation on the PSF.
>
> By this reasoning, you would be perfectly comfortable with a state of
> affairs where a media monopoly suppressed any and all dissenting
> viewpoints, provided that it was a *privately owned* monopoly and not
> the government.

To answer this more directly:

Expression between people – the field relevant to the freedom we're
discussing – occurs naturally and with little effort. It is not an
activity requiring high startup costs, and the market for it is as large
as humanity.

A monopoly on media is inherently unstable for this reason, so a
<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly> is highly unlikely
ever to arise. Competitors will arise frequently to end the monopoly, if
no state action is taken to stop them.

If you are positing a media monopoly capable of suppressing any and all
dissenting viewpoints, it can only persist in this because the state
prevents any competitor to that monopoly. So this is still effectively
the state acting to quash freedom of expression.

-- 
 \          “Now Maggie, I’ll be watching you too, in case God is busy |
  `\       creating tornadoes or not existing.” —Homer, _The Simpsons_ |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84044

Luke Tomaneng wrote:

> Has anyone noticed these? There have been about three of them recently and
> they don't seem to have anything to do with Python at all. Does anyone
> know if there is a good reason they are here?


They're spam, and depending on how you are accessing this group you may or
may not see them. Alas I do see them.

Just delete them, please please please please do not reply to them and try
to argue with the spammer. Occasionally we have either well-meaning but
foolish people who think that replying to spam, quoting the entire spam
message in their email, and sending to the list is somehow helping. Of
course the spammer isn't reading replies!

Either that, or they are actually spammers themselves, and their cunning
ploy is to *pretend* to be replying to spam in order to get their message
past the spam filters.

So don't be one of those guys.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84053

On 20/01/2015 00:15, Luke Tomaneng wrote:
> Has anyone noticed these? There have been about three of them recently and they don't seem to have anything to do with Python at all. Does anyone know if there is a good reason they are here?
>

I've never seen any of these reading gmane.comp.python.general using 
Thunderbird.  The only annoying things I recall recently are bvbvbvbv 
and the Italian Mob.  Whenever I spot them I'm straight onto gg to flag 
them as abuse.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84094

On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:15:58 -0800, Luke Tomaneng wrote:

> Has anyone noticed these? There have been about three of them recently
> and they don't seem to have anything to do with Python at all. Does
> anyone know if there is a good reason they are here?

Abusive spam from idiots. I have a regex that simply ignores any posting 
with no lower case in the subject.

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84408

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 4:16:13 PM UTC-8, Luke Tomaneng wrote:
> Has anyone noticed these? There have been about three of them recently and they don't seem to have anything to do with Python at all. Does anyone know if there is a good reason they are here?

My question is, does anyone know what the hell they're ranting about?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web