Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #31265 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-10-15 08:58 +1100 |
| Last post | 2012-10-16 20:00 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 68 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-10-15 08:58 +1100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-10-14 20:22 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 21:36 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-10-16 09:27 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-10-16 16:49 +0000
RE: Aggressive language on python-list "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-10-16 20:17 +0000
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-10-16 14:12 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-10-16 14:10 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-10-17 02:45 +0000
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-10-17 02:50 +0000
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 23:01 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list "Kristen J. Webb" <kwebb@teradactyl.com> - 2012-10-16 21:47 -0600
Re: Aggressive language on python-list alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 21:25 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 21:43 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 23:15 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 00:25 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-10-17 06:24 +0000
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 18:36 +1100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-17 09:40 +0100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-17 14:29 +0000
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 01:35 +1100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-10-17 15:33 +1100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-10-17 01:15 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-17 14:32 +0000
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-10-17 09:48 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 05:16 +1100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-10-17 12:20 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-10-17 12:53 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 21:28 +0100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-10-17 14:10 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-10-17 23:17 +0000
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 17:39 -0600
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2012-10-17 17:24 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 19:51 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 19:53 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 18:02 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 21:13 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 00:02 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 21:06 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 00:21 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 21:24 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 00:35 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:28 +1100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 21:36 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 01:17 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 23:19 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list David Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 02:27 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 00:30 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 03:07 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dave Angel <d@davea.name> - 2012-10-18 05:43 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 00:37 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 00:05 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 21:11 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 00:26 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 21:31 -0700
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 00:57 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-10-18 05:29 +0000
Re: Aggressive language on python-list David Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 01:43 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 11:11 +0100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:23 +1100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 00:33 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:42 +1100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Hguant <hguant@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 01:11 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2012-10-18 16:09 +0000
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 20:02 -0400
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 01:44 +0100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-18 01:55 +0100
Re: Aggressive language on python-list rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 20:00 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-17 21:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <839edc0d-d427-4c4f-ae6d-9d2d8c45ed97@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31576 |
On Oct 18, 2:21 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all". Then why did you actively re-add the list as a recipient when I had removed it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 00:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2395.1350534920.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31578 |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 2:21 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all". > > Then why did you actively re-add the list as a recipient when I had > removed it? How was I supposed to know you removed it. Usually it's an accident to hit just 'reply'. Check around, and ask. -- Best Regards, David Hutto CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 15:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2393.1350534524.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31573 |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM, alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [a public response to a private email] >> >> I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email >> exchange*, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with this >> list. > > Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all". That's not actually true either. The convention is to reply to the list with material that is edifying to the list, or to the author alone if the situation calls for it. Using reply-all sends the author a copy as well as putting it on-list, which is unnecessary (unless it's likely the author isn't subscribed). It's completely unnecessary to include the list in what's not of interest. And here I am, posting on-list something that's completely necessary. (sigh* Alex, Dwight, can you two please cool down a bit? A little calmness would improve this discussion significantly, methinks. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-17 21:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c205400b-df0f-458d-aa78-aeb6a94e30f0@a4g2000pbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31573 |
On Oct 18, 9:06 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > [a public response to a private email] > > I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email > exchange*, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with this > list. Speaking generally I agree. Specifically one of the points discussed in this same thread -- correcting/reprimanding unacceptable public-forum behavior with private emails -- this looks like a textbook example of why/when it does not work and serves to underscore rurpy's point that ignoring may be the best tactic in the long run. Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed: Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not seem to me that this was the case you were talking of, was it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 01:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2400.1350537450.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31584 |
: On 18 October 2012 00:36, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed: > Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not > seem to me that this was the case you were talking of, was it? Sorry, but I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. Could you rephrase it? ... I've just been sitting here horrified for the last half hour, trying to work out if there's anything productive I can say, either onlist or privately, to help defuse this situation. And ... well, probably not, but here goes anyway: David: I believe that you are trying to engage positively with this forum. I also believe that you have a tendency to misinterpret some comments as personal attacks[1], and to respond by "giving [at least] as good as you get". I don't think that's working out in the way you intend, and I think you'd improve your own standing here by taking a step back when you perceive an attack, counting to ten, taking a deep breath, and any other applicable cliché that generally gets trotted out in situations like this. Sometimes they're clichés because they're true. Alex23: I agree that publishing private correspondence is a breach of etiquette. I also think that continuing to engage with David over this isn't going to help anyone, at least while you're both so pissed off. Got to dash - I think they need me to oversee some Middle East peace talks ;-) -[]z. [1] A trait I share, and struggle to overcome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-17 23:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a5f106f-d343-4636-9349-8b2162208bea@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31589 |
On Oct 18, 10:18 am, Zero Piraeus <sche...@gmail.com> wrote: > : > > On 18 October 2012 00:36, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed: > > Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not > > seem to me that this was the case you were talking of, was it? > > Sorry, but I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. Could you rephrase it? I understood that your original post started after Etienne's outburst against Steven. David's outbursts are relatively harmless. I tried to talk gently to him http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-September/631949.html And then gave up http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-September/631950.html Not that I mind: People much wiser than we have expressed that war is the most horrible thing in the universe and David is by his own admission a war-damaged individual. If Steven chooses to engage him thats his call If Alex chooses to fight with him thats his I am betting that in the end, rurpy's suggestion -- Ignoring is the best policy -- or Ben's -- Respond carefully, minimally and with caution -- is what everyone will have to come to. This does not mean I dont wish him well, just that I realize that the sphere of my action and influence are intrinsically limited. And all this misses the point that you started this thread (I think) with Etienne-Steven in mind not David-RestOfTheWorld. (Assuming this conjecture) I would like to say: Etienne is not a 'dick' or a 'troll' just a human being with the same buggy wetware that we all have whose logic goes: If you call me an asshole (when justified) I'll call you can asshole (even if not). Likewise Alex calling David racist may be justified but is not helpful. IOW the robustness principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle is as good for human networking as for computers. [BTW This was enunciated 2000 years ago by a clever chap: Love your enemies; drive them crazy]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 02:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2405.1350541649.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31595 |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:19 AM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 10:18 am, Zero Piraeus <sche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> : >> >> On 18 October 2012 00:36, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed: >> > Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not >> > seem to me that this was the case you were talking of, was it? >> >> Sorry, but I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. Could you rephrase it? > > I understood that your original post started after Etienne's outburst > against Steven. > David's outbursts are relatively harmless. > I tried to talk gently to him http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-September/631949.html > And then gave up http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-September/631950.html > > Not that I mind: People much wiser than we have expressed that war is > the most horrible thing in the universe and David is by his own > admission a war-damaged individual. > > If Steven chooses to engage him thats his call > If Alex chooses to fight with him thats his > I am betting that in the end, rurpy's suggestion -- Ignoring is the > best policy -- or Ben's -- Respond carefully, minimally and with > caution -- is what everyone will have to come to. > This does not mean I dont wish him well, just that I realize that the > sphere of my action and influence are intrinsically limited. > > And all this misses the point that you started this thread (I think) > with Etienne-Steven in mind not David-RestOfTheWorld. > > (Assuming this conjecture) I would like to say: > Etienne is not a 'dick' or a 'troll' just a human being with the same > buggy wetware that we all have whose logic goes: If you call me an > asshole (when justified) I'll call you can asshole (even if not). > Likewise Alex calling David racist may be justified but is not > helpful. > > IOW the robustness principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle > is as good for human networking as for computers. > > [BTW This was enunciated 2000 years ago by a clever chap: Love your > enemies; drive them crazy That only works if they're not already insane. Otherwise you're just prodding a cornered beast. ] -- Best Regards, David Hutto CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 00:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bea9131a-11b1-4c78-b6b4-9134b9fef86f@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31596 |
On Oct 18, 11:27 am, David Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [BTW This was enunciated 2000 years ago by a clever chap: Love your > > enemies; drive them crazy > > That only works if they're not already insane. > Otherwise you're just prodding a cornered beast. Usually but not necessarily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angulimala#Story
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 03:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2408.1350544080.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31595 |
: On 18 October 2012 02:19, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > I understood that your original post started after Etienne's outburst > against Steven. Ah, I see. It was intended as a general request for politeness, but yes, IIRC that was the exchange that prompted it. > IOW the robustness principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle > is as good for human networking as for computers. Never thought of it as applying to humans ... that's rather good. Not universally applicable, but then neither is it for computers. -[]z.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Angel <d@davea.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 05:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2416.1350553402.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31595 |
On 10/18/2012 02:19 AM, rusi wrote: > <snip> > > IOW the robustness principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle > is as good for human networking as for computers. > > The catch to that is that the software that is liberally accepting anything is quite vulnerable to attacks. Windows has a checksum in the exe header that's been there since the MSDOS days, and to the best of my knowledge has never been checked by the loader. So even accidental file corruption goes unnoticed. Likewise IP and other protocol accept all sorts of retries and fragments, and since different OS's overlay those pieces with differing rules, it's quite common for different OS's to see different versions of the packets after reconstruction. So Intrusion detection software (sort of like anti-virus) can be fooled. Goals have changed over the years, and what was a good idea 20 years ago is pretty painful now. I suppose the human analogy might be the trusting people who believe any scammer that comes along. As for me, I'd rather be sometimes fooled than never to trust anyone. So, although I can argue against it, I pretty much agree with the robustness principle. -- DaveA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 00:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2396.1350535038.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31573 |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM, alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> [a public response to a private email] >>> >>> I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email >>> exchange*, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with this >>> list. >> >> Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all". > > That's not actually true either. The convention is to reply to the > list with material that is edifying to the list, or to the author > alone if the situation calls for it. Using reply-all sends the author > a copy as well as putting it on-list, which is unnecessary (unless > it's likely the author isn't subscribed). It's completely unnecessary > to include the list in what's not of interest. > > And here I am, posting on-list something that's completely necessary. > (sigh* Alex, Dwight, can you two please cool down a bit? A little > calmness would improve this discussion significantly, methinks. > Sometimes an e-mail doesn't convey tone, or pitch of voice. If it were face to face, instead of text, things would be much different. -- Best Regards, David Hutto CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 00:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2388.1350533105.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31565 |
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote: > Did you really forward a private email to a public mailing list without > permission? > > Are you really that fucking ignorant of the law? This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that. Plus, that is the standard. We discuss this as a community. You never stated you wanted it private, ad if you had, it would have remained that way. -- Best Regards, David Hutto CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-17 21:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fa85e9c-8675-4241-b7ed-1816a11a51eb@n2g2000pbp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31572 |
On Oct 18, 2:05 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a > loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that. I'm not in America, so your constitution means nothing to me. > Plus, that is the standard. We discuss this as a community. You never > stated you wanted it private, ad if you had, it would have remained > that way. I *sent you a private response* because it wasn't relevant to the list. You chose to re-include the list, which is an active decision you had to make. That is not acceptable behaviour, nor is it the "standard".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 00:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2392.1350534389.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31575 |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:11 AM, alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 2:05 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a >> loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that. > > I'm not in America, so your constitution means nothing to me. But you apparently want freedom of speech. > >> Plus, that is the standard. We discuss this as a community. You never >> stated you wanted it private, ad if you had, it would have remained >> that way. > > I *sent you a private response* because it wasn't relevant to the > list. You chose to re-include the list, No, lots of people hit 'reply' instead of 'reply all'. Read around, it gets stated all the time. The main response is don't reply privately, keep it on list, unless otherwise stated. which is an active decision > you had to make. Based on certain list's rules. Hit 'reply all' That is not acceptable behaviour, nor is it the > "standard". That's debatable, unless you implied that was your intention. As I've mentioned before...people can start arguing, and one replies off list, and then goes back on the list after a private e-mail, and says ahah, see how they're acting, and they never saw the private reply you sent. -- Best Regards, David Hutto CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-17 21:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5850938c-792e-416b-9b78-2e487d7a0e4d@a4g2000pbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31579 |
On Oct 18, 2:26 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > But you apparently want freedom of speech. I can't even begin to address this idiocy. > As I've mentioned before...people can start arguing, and one replies > off list, and then goes back on the list after a private e-mail, and > says ahah, see how they're acting, and they never saw the private > reply you sent. And yet that's *exactly* what *you* have just done. Should I forward to this list all of the offensive private posts that you've sent me? Of course not, because you sent them to me privately and they're *not relevant to this list*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 00:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2398.1350536281.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31581 |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM, alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 2:26 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> But you apparently want freedom of speech. > > I can't even begin to address this idiocy. Then don't(your idiocy acknowledges your own misunderstanding), because you don't want the freedom to speak publicly, so don't reply, or send messages anymore, because your stance is weak, and your word meaningless if you don't like that particular amendment. > >> As I've mentioned before...people can start arguing, and one replies >> off list, and then goes back on the list after a private e-mail, and >> says ahah, see how they're acting, and they never saw the private >> reply you sent. > > And yet that's *exactly* what *you* have just done. No, I included everything that was said, no editing. So stop the bullshit PR attack, you're not good at it. > Should I forward to this list all of the offensive private posts that > you've sent me? Of course not, because you sent them to me privately Unaware, and of course send them, and make sure they're not falsified data, because I have google copies of what I've sent.. > and they're *not relevant to this list*. That's why they have an OT term.It's just conversation other than the mundane "How do you print a digit?" -- Best Regards, David Hutto CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 05:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <507f93d6$0$11093$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #31572 |
David, While I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to be less aggressive on this list, I think you have crossed a line by forwarding the contents of an obviously personal email containing CLEARLY PRIVATE MATTERS to a public list without permission, without even anonymising it. Not cool mate, not cool. The first amendment doesn't excuse this. You don't get to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre either. I think you owe Wu Wei, and Alex, apologies. Re-adding the list to a clearly Python-related question to the list is marginally okay. (I normally wouldn't do it, but some people do.) Adding the list to a personal comment is not. And quite frankly, I sympathise with how hard your life has been, but this isn't your personal support group. There is such a thing as too much sharing. My personal advice is that I think you need to take a break for a couple of days and then come back focused on Python, rather than on defending yourself against real or imagined slights. I'm not your dad and I'm not sending you to your room, but sometimes a man has to know when it's best to just walk away and let things cool off, regardless of who is right and who is wrong. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 01:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2402.1350538984.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31591 |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > David, > > While I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to be less aggressive on > this list, I think you have crossed a line by forwarding the contents of > an obviously personal email containing CLEARLY PRIVATE MATTERS to a > public list without permission, without even anonymising it. > I get that it was a in a thread, and we;'re always told to respond all, unless otherwise asked, and they didn't directly ask, so I responded back to the list like the etiquette dictates. > Not cool mate, not cool. > > The first amendment doesn't excuse this. You don't get to shout "Fire!" > in a crowded theatre either. That's an over exaggeration of whats going on. > > I think you owe Wu Wei, and Alex, apologies. But only for thinking that it's always reply all, and I do apologize, but they should have directly requested it in the email. If you follow the discussions here, again, it's always you should 'reply all'. > > Re-adding the list to a clearly Python-related question to the list is > marginally okay. (I normally wouldn't do it, but some people do.) Adding > the list to a personal comment is not. You know damn good and well opinions flutter like butterflies around here. > > And quite frankly, I sympathise with how hard your life has been, Don't, it's made me a better person to see the very worst people in life, be kind of a bad ass, and become better at being a stable person. It made me who I'm becoming, even if who I am now is just a transitional. but > this isn't your personal support group. There is such a thing as too much > sharing. It was mainly a business image, and wanting to revise myself, which I'm doing constantly. Most here are professionals, so I asked, and in the middle of a small flame war. > > My personal advice is that I think you need to take a break for a couple > of days and then come back focused on Python, rather than on defending > yourself against real or imagined slights. I'm not your dad and I'm not > sending you to your room, but sometimes a man has to know when it's best > to just walk away and let things cool off, regardless of who is right and > who is wrong. > I'm trying, but I do like to defend myself line for line. I can cool off, but can they lay off while I'm doing it, and do the same themselves? -- Best Regards, David Hutto CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 11:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2420.1350555074.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31591 |
On 10/18/12 6:43 AM, David Hutto wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano > <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: >> David, >> >> While I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to be less aggressive on >> this list, I think you have crossed a line by forwarding the contents of >> an obviously personal email containing CLEARLY PRIVATE MATTERS to a >> public list without permission, without even anonymising it. >> > I get that it was a in a thread, and we;'re always told to respond > all, unless otherwise asked, and they didn't directly ask, so I > responded back to the list like the etiquette dictates. I know that you have apologized for this later in the email, and I appreciate that, but I would like to explicitly state some of the expectations of etiquette for this list. I don't mean to chastise excessively. I'm afraid that you were either misinformed, or you misinterpreted what you were told. When someone sends you an email that is *only addressed to you*, you should not forward that to the list without getting explicit permission. It is possible that someone just forgot to include the list, but it's also quite likely that they meant it only for you, particularly when it is of a more personal nature. Etiquette dictates that you should not assume that they meant to include the list. If you are in doubt, you must ask. This rule trumps others if you think there is a conflict in interpretation. If you do make a private response, it is always a good idea to explicitly state so, but the lack of such a statement is not an excuse for the recipient to make the email public. The default assumption must be that they meant to send it to exactly those people they actually sent it to. Thank you for listening. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 15:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2391.1350534217.27098.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #31565 |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote: >> Did you really forward a private email to a public mailing list without >> permission? >> >> Are you really that fucking ignorant of the law? > > This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a > loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that. Common misconception. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the *making of any law* that restricts certain freedoms. It does not have ANYTHING to do with "I have first amendment rights to say whatever I like". It is restrictions on Congress and the state governments in the US of A. Even if python-list were purely US-based, it still wouldn't apply. Deliberately forwarding a private email without permission is a breach of courtesy, more than of the law. It may be possible to make a civil case of the breach of privacy in some jurisdictions, but mainly it's just a gross discourtesy. (Assuming, that is, that the email wasn't actually intended to be public. I've at times responded on-list to a private email, but with a tag at the top explaining that.) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web