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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #31265 > unrolled thread

Re: Aggressive language on python-list

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.

Contents

  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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#31511

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I disagree!  I think occasional off-topic meta-arguments can be
> interesting and entertaining.
>
> Yow!  Am I having a meta-meta-discussion yet?

Now we get to the meat of the discussion...

It's like I was explaining to one of my brothers the other week: When
in doubt, go meta. He had a whole lot of data and he had to give a
presentation about it (for a course he was doing, and I'm not wholly
sure the 'o' belongs in there). He wanted to do something that
everyone else wouldn't be doing, so I suggested going meta. He said
everyone else would be doing that, so I advised him to add another
meta-level - for instance, do a presentation on how many people go
meta in their presentations. I still don't know whether he dared to do
so :)

ChrisA

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

#31461

"Kristen J. Webb" <kwebb@teradactyl.com> writes:

> What the f**k! I thought that subscribing to a list would promote
> education, enlightenment, and a shared communal effort to make things
> better for things (python) related.

Yes, that's the focus of this thread: how best to engage in a shared
communal effort to make things better for Python-related discussion.

> It sucks for me to spend so much time filtering this BS.

The thread helpfully tells you what it's about in the subject field, and
remains remarkably on-topic by that description. Filter appropriately.

If it sucks for you to receive a high-volume discussion forum in your
email, you may want to use a better email client with more sophisticated
filtering capability. Or you can subscribe to the forum as a Usenet
newsgroup, <URL:news:comp.lang.python>.

> Let's be honest, does any of this crap have anything to do with
> python, it's promotion,

Yes, I think this discussion does have direct relevance to supporting
the promotion of Python. My views on how have been made elsewhere in
this same thread.

-- 
 \     “Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a |
  `\       man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.” |
_o__)                                                 —John A. Hrastar |
Ben Finney

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

#31464

On 10/16/2012 11:47 PM, Kristen J. Webb wrote:

> I will say that my perusal of this list has been
> informative.  I also receive more email from this
> list than any other I subscribe to.

You could instead access it as a newsgroup via news.gmane.org. That 
keeps posts isolated and you only download those item you request. News 
readers should collapse threads to a single line and allow you to mark 
all as read.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

#31508

On 2012-10-17, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 11:47 PM, Kristen J. Webb wrote:
>
>> I will say that my perusal of this list has been
>> informative.  I also receive more email from this
>> list than any other I subscribe to.
>
> You could instead access it as a newsgroup via news.gmane.org. That 
> keeps posts isolated and you only download those item you request. News 
> readers should collapse threads to a single line and allow you to mark 
> all as read.

I'm a big fan of gmane (though I happen to read this "forum" as
comp.language.python from a Usenet server).  Newsreaders often have
more sophisticated mechanisms to allow you to filter out certain
people/topics/whaterver that don't interest you.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! ... this must be what
                                  at               it's like to be a COLLEGE
                              gmail.com            GRADUATE!!

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

#31525

On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:
> 
>> On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
>>> > dicks:
>> 
>> No, I wrote about trolls.  "dicks" is a highly emotive and almost
>> totally subjective word 
> 
> As opposed to "troll", which is unemotional and objective? Not.

Not not.  Please be careful of binary thinking.  I did
not say "troll" is unemotional and objective; I said it
was much less so than "dick".  It has a fairly specific
meaning (see the wikipedia article for example.)

>> that I would not use in a rational discussion. 
> 
> I would. If someone is acting like a dick, why not call them by the word 
> that most accurately describes their behaviour?

Because (as I said) it is highly subjective and hence describes
not their behavior but rather your opinion of their behavior.

> I see nothing troll like in Dwight "call me David, but I can't be 
> bothered changing my signature" Hutto's behaviour. He doesn't seem to be 
> trolling, in either sense: he doesn't appear to be making provocative 
> statements for the purpose of making people think, nor does he seem to be 
> making inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people. He seems to 
> genuinely want to help people, in a clumsy, aggressive, and I believe 
> often intoxicated way.
> 
> So it seems to me that you are wrongly applying the term "troll" as a 
> meaningless pejorative to anyone who behaves badly.

Hardly meaningless.  It seems to me there is a spectrum
ranging from those who post for the pure enjoyment of starting
an argument, through those who have a on-topic reason to
post but have a lot of attitude, through those who usually
keep their attitude under control but go off when provoked
to those who really are clueless and have no idea that their
attitude is offensive to anyone.  

This is further complicated by the fact that some offensive
behaviors are offensive to some and not to others, and worse,
some people are offended by any opinion they disagree with.
Finally there are lots of people, some drive-by, some with
lots of python knowledge and regulars here, who just enjoy
arguing.  That trait is not restricted to trolls.

So regardless of the category of "troll", telling them to 
stop is more likely to result in a response ranging from a 
repetition of what they already said to "go screw yourself", 
followed by dozens of more responses telling them everything
from "stop" to "you're an asshole".

You are right that I lumped them all under the label "troll".  
I will do so through the rest of this post since I don't 
have any other good labels.

>> Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?
> 
> Certainly not.
> 
>>>> >> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do
>>>> >> the same.
> [...]
>>> > How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for
>>> > acting like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because
>>> > nobody has anything to add"?
>> 
>> Because you sent them private email telling them that? 
> 
> My, what a ... unique ... concept of "ignore such posts" you have.

What's so unique about it?  I have seen such advice dozens
of times including in this list.  (Oh wait, I just read ahead.
I'll respond below).
 
> So far, this has been the best advice you have given so far. My opinion 
> is that there is a graduated response to dickish behaviour:
> 
> * send a message telling the person they are acting unacceptably,
>   preferably privately on a first offence to avoid public shaming
>   (when possible -- lots of people aren't privately contactable 
>   for many reasons other than that they are trolls);
> 
> * if the behaviour continues, make a public comment condemning 
>   that behaviour generally without engaging directly in a debate
>   or "tit-for-tat" argument with the person.

That's great except that, 
 * Many people feel compelled to make the same public comment
 * Tit-for-tat arguments usually do ensue.
 
> And for those who value their own peace and quiet over the community 
> benefit:
> 
> * block or killfile posts from that person so they don't
>   have to be seen, preferably publicly.

 * And all too often that is followed up with a public **plonk**.
   (I really don't care that you (generic) killfiled someone.
   I'm quite capable of deciding who to read on my own.) 
 
> When I killfile someone, I tend to make it expire after a month or three, 
> just in case they mend their ways. Call me Mr Softy if you like.
> 
> [...]
>>> > If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing
>>> > great harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will
>>> > you know to change your behaviour?
>> 
>> If that was how you thought, then you would be someone I hope would
>> follow my advice.  Because you would clearly seem to be unable to
>> distinguish between difference of opinion on a subject relevant to the
>> newsgroup, and inflammatory trolling. Further you see the situation in
>> extreme terms ("*great harm*") and one in which only a single point of
>> view (your's) is acceptable.
> 
> As opposed to only your opinion being acceptable? 

Excuse me?  Exactly where did I say only my opinion
was acceptable?  I read a post that suggested responding 
to "offensive" posts.  I posted my opinion that that
will likely provoke more offensive posts and off topic
discussions that it will prevent.

But you wrote,

  "[if] I don't say anything, how will you know to change
   your behaviour?"

Your phrasing implies to me that once you have told me 
that my behavior is wrong, the only reasonable thing to 
do is for me to change it.  I don't see any room there 
for the possibility that I might justifiably think my 
behavior is ok, or that you are willing to listen to a 
defense of my behavior.  You've informed me: I either
change or am a jerk.

So I think it is perfectly fair to describe that as "only 
your opinion being acceptable".  Had you written something 
like, "if I don't say anything, how will you realize you are 
offending some of us?", I would not have reacted as negatively.

> Why on earth should I 
> follow your advice if I think it is bad advice?

Nothing compels you to if you don't want to.  As nothing
compels me or anyone else here to follow your advice.  

> We can't both be right[1]. We can't simultaneously confront bad 
> behaviour, and ignore bad behaviour. I think your advice is bad,

As I think your's is.

> and has 
> the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has 
> the potential to kill this community.

No.  Again you have misunderstood (or have chosen to make
things up for the sake of your argument.)  I made the suggestion
to ignore trolls (and other posts you find offensive) to reduce 
the number of long argumentative threads that have nothing to
do with Python.  Since anyone can identify these threads and 
ski[p over them (they are an annoyance, not a deathly menace)
I see your claim that they will "kill this community" as silly 
hyperbolic rhetoric.  But because they are an annoyance I think
it desirable to reduce them if possible and I think the best 
way to do that is to ignore them.

> Except that you've made a 180-
> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently 
> didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition 
> "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.

Do you have Asberger's by any chance?  Can you understand that
I said "ignore" in the context of public discussions in this 
newsgroup/maillist?

>> You would be bordering on delusional by
>> thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".
> 
> It's not necessarily about changing your behaviour.
> (Well, in this case, it's less about you 

"*less* about me"?  Could you clarify that?  Are you saying
my behavior is bad and needs to be changed?  (Just not as much
as someone else?)

> than about Dwight Hutto specifically and badly-
> behaved posters in general.) It's about sending a message that the 
> behaviour is unacceptable.
> 
> The primary purpose of that message is to discourage *others* from 
> following in the same behaviour. Nothing will kill a forum faster than 
> trolls and dicks feeding off each other, until there is nothing left but 
> trolls and dicks. A single troll doesn't do much harm -- few of them have 
> the energy to spam a news group for long periods, drowning out useful 
> posts.

I have read of "invasions" of trolls, (or cyber-vandals or
whatever) that have lowered lists' S/N so much that all the
regular people left.  However, I don't think that kind of 
organized attack is at issue here.  The issue is the occasional 
poster who posts something that some others find offensive.  
I don't believe that ignoring such posts will encourage more
of them.  It is the responses (which despite recommendations 
to the contrary will often be offensive or provoking in 
themselves) that encourage more trolling.

>> But even if you had a more rational response 
> 
> *raises eyebrow*

I explained why I thought it was irrational.  Addressing those
points would be more effective than a raised eyebrow.

>> and saved that reaction for
>> actual trolling and not someone who simply disagreed with you, I ask
>> again, what makes you think your response will change that troll's
>> behavior, when in actuality, your kind of response is exactly what most
>> trolls hope to elicit?  Did it help in the case I mentioned?
> 
> As I said, I do not believe that Dwight Hutto is a troll. I believe he is 
> merely badly behaved. And yes, I do believe that confronting him has 
> changed his behaviour, at least for now.
> 
> Not immediately, of course. His immediate response was to retaliate and 
> defend himself. Naturally -- very few people are self-honest enough to 
> admit, even to themselves, when they are behaving badly.
> 
> But in the intervening weeks, we, this community, has done anything but 
> ignore him. We're still talking about him *right now*. We're just not 
> necessarily talking *to* him. And the few times that people do respond 
> directly to Dwight, they make it very clear that their response is 
> guarded and on sufferance.
> 
> And there have been no further outbursts from Dwight, at least not so 
> far. So, yes, I think we've gotten the message across.

But then you don't know what the response would have 
been had you simply ignored him.  It is however reasonable 
to suppose that the (dozens? hundreds?) of followups that
those threads generated would not have occurred.  So I
don't see that you've proven anything.
 
>>> > How will others know that I do not agree with your advice?
>> 
>> Why is it so important to you that I and others know what you think? 
>> Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I don't need to read your
>> explicit pronouncement to assume that you disagree with some repugnant
>> post.
> 
> You are assuming we all agree on what is repugnant. That pretty much 
> demonstrates that you have missed my point.

No.  Please go back and reread my response to Alex23 where I 
wrote, "...different people have different ideas about
what is 'wrong'".

I wrote that I could assume there are certain repugnant posts 
*you* (and some others but certainly not all) also would find 
disagreeable because 
 * You often have made you views known here.
 * I believe many people posting here share a similar]
   background and moral worldview, and least regarding
   some subjects.
 * I was trying to find something nice to say about you.
But you way overreached if you think I meant all posters or
all offensive posts.

>  Without drawing explicit 
> boundaries, how do people know what we consider beyond the boundary of 
> acceptable behaviour?

You just chastised me (erroneously) for assuming "*we* all agree on 
what is repugnant."  In the very next sentence you write, "what *we* 
consider beyond the boundary of acceptable behavior"  What is the
difference between "repugnant posts" and "acceptable behavior" that 
makes you think agreement on the first is not possible but agreement
on the second is?

> The people in this forum come from all over the world. We're not all 
> white, middle-class[2], Australian, educated, progressive/liberals like 
> me. We're black, Chinese, German, conservative, Muslim, Christian, 
> atheist, socialist, anarchist, fascist, etc. We come from all sorts of 
> cultures, where families are run like democracies, or where they are run 
> like dictatorships where the father is the head of the household even of 
> his adult children; cultures that consider euthanasia beyond the pale and 
> those that believe that there are fates worse than death; cultures where 
> smacking children is an abomination and cultures where it is simply 
> common sense; cultures that condone honour-killings and those that don't; 
> cultures where blowing yourself up to kill the enemy is thought to be an 
> act of bravery, and cultures where pushing a button to kill strangers a 
> thousand miles away is thought to be an honourable act of military 
> service.

Thanks for the lecture but I know all that.
 
> What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are 
> repugnant without talking about it?

What on earth makes you think that "talking about" it will
achieve agreement?  For heaven's sake, all the above cultures 
have a long history of killing each other and you seriously 
think that we can resolve these differences by some don't-
say-that" posts on c.l.p?  

One cultural aspect you failed to mention but which is relevant 
to this discussion is freedom of speech.  There are many opinions 
about what that means, and there are many people who hold it
as more important than mere offensiveness.  That shows again 
how hard it is to define a standard what is acceptable here.

So sorry, I still think the best solution is what I suggested
and what has been widely used for a long time: python-related 
posts only (which also excludes responses to offensive posts.)

> I'm sure that there are some people here -- and you might be one of them 
> -- that consider my use of the word "dick" unacceptable. And others who 
> consider dick a mild word and far less offensive than the euphemisms 
> others might prefer.

Right.  And others consider "fuck you", or "lick my dick, 
bitch" a perfectly reasonable response to a perceived insult.  
Different people, different backgrounds, different personalities.  
I would personally prefer to ignore a single (or small number)
of offensive posts than to have to ignore the hundreds of
responses over weeks generated by all those who feel compelled 
to "correct" the behavior of the OP, and more who respond in 
defense of the OP.

> Your opinion that we should all, somehow, agree on acceptable behaviour 
> is culturally self-centred and rather naive.

No, per your own statement above, that is what you seem to 
believe.  You are the one arguing for responding to breaches
of "acceptable behavior".  Or are you saying that everyone 
here should respond based on their own personal standard of
offensiveness (i.e, if if am offended by you mention of a 
deity which is not the one, true, deity you feel I should
announce on this list the offensive nature of that post?)

As I said, I believe just the opposite, that there will always
be irreconcilable differences in what is considered acceptable
posting etiquette.  Hence, the best response in the interest 
of avoiding endless arguments, is to simply not respond to 
what you perceive as offensive.

> I'm far more offended by 
> Dwight's habit of posting incoherently while pissed[3] than I am by his 
> possibly-or-possibly-not racist punning. But I don't expect everyone to 
> agree with me.

Good.  Then you won't mind my being offended by your public
derogatory accusations of something you can't possibly be sure 
of.  I find that as sleazy as Mr. Hutto's choice of language.

> [1] However, we can both be wrong. There's no reason to think that there 
> is *any* strategy to respond to bad behaviour that will work all the 
> time, against all people.
> 
> [2] Nearly everybody thinks they're middle-class, except the filthy rich 
> and the filthy poor.
> 
> [3] I don't give a damn what mind-altering chemicals Dwight wishes to 
> indulge in, so long as he does it in private.

And Dwight probably doesn't give a damn what your opinion is.
After your public speculations on his recreational drug habits
I can't say I blame him.  You ironically picked a very 
illustriative way to end a message about offensive posts
and a good example why not responding to such is better.

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

#31529

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Except that you've made a 180-
>> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
>> didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition
>> "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.
>
> Do you have Asberger's by any chance?  Can you understand that
> I said "ignore" in the context of public discussions in this
> newsgroup/maillist?

That's nothing to do with Asperger's. Ignoring something/someone does
not include sending a private message. What you may be trying to say
is that we should refrain from publicly responding to bad behaviour,
which is not the same thing. If you want to pull a Humpty Dumpty and
use "ignore" to mean "not respond to in public", then go ahead, I'm
not stopping you - but do please make it clear somewhere in your post.

Impenetrability!

ChrisA

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

#31536

On 10/17/2012 12:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM,  rurpy wrote:
>>On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> Except that you've made a 180-
>>> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
>>> didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition
>>> "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.
>>
>> Do you have Asberger's by any chance?  Can you understand that
>> I said "ignore" in the context of public discussions in this
>> newsgroup/maillist?
> 
> That's nothing to do with Asperger's. Ignoring something/someone does
> not include sending a private message. What you may be trying to say
> is that we should refrain from publicly responding to bad behaviour,
> which is not the same thing. If you want to pull a Humpty Dumpty and
> use "ignore" to mean "not respond to in public", then go ahead, I'm
> not stopping you - but do please make it clear somewhere in your post.

I thought (and think now) that it was quite clear in
context that "ignore" was to be taken relative to what
was being discussed -- responding in this list.

Did you seriously think I meant you weren't supposed 
even read it?  That you must not print it out and burn 
it in effigy?  That you can't mention it to a friend as 
an example of something that pissed you off that day?  
That you can't write a blog entry about it?  That you 
can't report it to law enforcement if you thought it was 
threatening?  I see responding privately to the poster
in exactly the same vein.

Ignore it *on the list*.

I hope that makes it clear enough?

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

#31537

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, rurpy wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 12:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>[...]
> Ignore it *on the list*.

Quick addendum: I wrote earlier (in some post in this thread 
I don't have time to dig up now) that the above possibly should 
not apply when one is the target of (a perceived) offensive post.

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

#31538

On 17 October 2012 19:16, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> Except that you've made a 180-
>>> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
>>> didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition
>>> "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.
>>
>> Do you have Asberger's by any chance?  Can you understand that
>> I said "ignore" in the context of public discussions in this
>> newsgroup/maillist?
>
> That's nothing to do with Asperger's. Ignoring something/someone does
> not include sending a private message. What you may be trying to say
> is that we should refrain from publicly responding to bad behaviour,
> which is not the same thing. If you want to pull a Humpty Dumpty and
> use "ignore" to mean "not respond to in public", then go ahead, I'm
> not stopping you - but do please make it clear somewhere in your post.

I would also assume that ignoring a post means not replying on or off list.

Moreover, I think it's unfortunate for you to make this comment with
an irrelevant reference to Asperger's syndrome. I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it this way but the comment
is easily interpreted as being disparaging to people with Asperger's.

Generally I think that using psychological disorders or medical
conditions as part of ad hominem risks offending people for no good
reason. If you mean to accuse Steven of pedantry then why not use
words like "pedantic" rather then words like "autistic".


Oscar

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

#31539

On 10/17/2012 02:28 PM, Oscar Benjamin wrote:> On 17 October 2012 19:16, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>> Except that you've made a 180-
>>>> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
>>>> didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition
>>>> "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.
>>>
>>> Do you have Asberger's by any chance?  Can you understand that
>>> I said "ignore" in the context of public discussions in this
>>> newsgroup/maillist?
>>
>> That's nothing to do with Asperger's. Ignoring something/someone does
>> not include sending a private message. What you may be trying to say
>> is that we should refrain from publicly responding to bad behaviour,
>> which is not the same thing. If you want to pull a Humpty Dumpty and
>> use "ignore" to mean "not respond to in public", then go ahead, I'm
>> not stopping you - but do please make it clear somewhere in your post.
> 
> I would also assume that ignoring a post means not replying on or off list.

Then I hope my reply to Chris clarified that for you as well.

> Moreover, I think it's unfortunate for you to make this comment with
> an irrelevant reference to Asperger's syndrome. I'll give you the
> benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean it this way but the comment
> is easily interpreted as being disparaging to people with Asperger's.

Yes, on rereading that, I agree it was uncalled for and I 
retract it and apologize to any who may have been offended 
by it.

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

#31548

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:10:34 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> On 10/17/2012 02:28 PM, Oscar Benjamin wrote:> On 17 October 2012 19:16,
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>On 10/16/2012 08:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>> Except that you've made a 180-
>>>>> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but
>>>>> apparently didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any
>>>>> definition "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with
>>>>> your own advice.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have Asberger's by any chance?  Can you understand that I said
>>>> "ignore" in the context of public discussions in this
>>>> newsgroup/maillist?
>>>
>>> That's nothing to do with Asperger's. Ignoring something/someone does
>>> not include sending a private message. What you may be trying to say
>>> is that we should refrain from publicly responding to bad behaviour,
>>> which is not the same thing. If you want to pull a Humpty Dumpty and
>>> use "ignore" to mean "not respond to in public", then go ahead, I'm
>>> not stopping you - but do please make it clear somewhere in your post.
>> 
>> I would also assume that ignoring a post means not replying on or off
>> list.
> 
> Then I hope my reply to Chris clarified that for you as well.
> 
>> Moreover, I think it's unfortunate for you to make this comment with an
>> irrelevant reference to Asperger's syndrome. I'll give you the benefit
>> of the doubt that you didn't mean it this way but the comment is easily
>> interpreted as being disparaging to people with Asperger's.
> 
> Yes, on rereading that, I agree it was uncalled for and I retract it and
> apologize to any who may have been offended by it.

Excuse me, I think that anybody who was offended by it needs to take a 
long, hard look at themselves. Would you be offended if Rurpy asked "Are 
you diabetic?" There's no more shame in being Aspie than there is in 
being diabetic, or allergic to wheat, or colour blind.


-- 
Steven

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

#31553

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Excuse me, I think that anybody who was offended by it needs to take a
> long, hard look at themselves. Would you be offended if Rurpy asked "Are
> you diabetic?"

If the question were sincere, no.  On the other hand, if it were a
rhetorical question with the implication that only diabetics could
possibly be so obtuse, then yes, it would be offensive.

Instead of "diabetic", try inserting the word "black" or "female".
There's no shame in those either, yet I think that the offensiveness
of either of those words used in that context should be obvious.

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

#31557

On 10/17/2012 05:39 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Excuse me, I think that anybody who was offended by it needs to take a
>> long, hard look at themselves. Would you be offended if Rurpy asked "Are
>> you diabetic?"
> 
> If the question were sincere, no.  On the other hand, if it were a
> rhetorical question with the implication that only diabetics could
> possibly be so obtuse, then yes, it would be offensive.
> 
> Instead of "diabetic", try inserting the word "black" or "female".
> There's no shame in those either, yet I think that the offensiveness
> of either of those words used in that context should be obvious.

The question *was* sincere.  Some people with Asberger's 
tend to take words and expressions too literally.  I know
because it it is a problem I often have.

Nevertheless I should not have raised the issue in the
newsgroup, especially when criticizing Steven for not 
just asking, but asserting, that someone else's writings
were the products of excessive drug use.

This list is not the place to ask or speculate about
personal traits of posters; rather only on message 
contents.

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

#31554

:

On 17 October 2012 19:17, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
[on Asperger's]
> Excuse me, I think that anybody who was offended by it needs to take a
> long, hard look at themselves. Would you be offended if Rurpy asked "Are
> you diabetic?" There's no more shame in being Aspie than there is in
> being diabetic, or allergic to wheat, or colour blind.

In the culture in which I grew up, at least, dropping "do you have
developmental disorder X"? into a fairly combative reply like the one
under discussion would definitely be considered rude, not because
there's any shame in having developmental disorder X, but because it's
a plausible assumption that the questioner thinks there is [and that
that's why they used the question as a retort].

I don't mean to imply that this was rurpy's intent [especially given
that he's withdrawn the comment]. But to me it did initially feel more
like "Are you blind?" than "Are you diabetic?" ... and the former is
more commonly used as an insult than a genuine enquiry.

 -[]z.

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

#31555

> Instead of "diabetic", try inserting the word "black" or "female".
> There's no shame in those either, yet I think that the offensiveness
> of either of those words used in that context should be obvious.

To take it a little further, what if I said I got gypped. I think it
goes to gypsy's. Was it racist?

Reneged has always been renegotiable, yet one time I accidently said
to a good black friend of mine that something was nig rigged, and
thought it meant negotiably rigged, but it wasn't racist.

Recently, I told a guy to ramit, because his name or pseudo name, I
thought, was ramit, and got called a racist for it.

It seems that we get too politically correct when we want to cherry
pick a comment for propaganda against someone.

Sometimes it's just ridiculous.


-- 
Best Regards,
David Hutto
CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com

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

#31562

On Oct 18, 9:53 am, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To take it a little further, what if I said I got gypped. I think it
> goes to gypsy's. Was it racist?

Ignorant racism is still racism. Historical racism is still racism.

> It seems that we get too politically correct when we want to cherry
> pick a comment for propaganda against someone.

I think a person who tells others not to be sensitive to his actions
towards them shouldn't post so many complaints about how other people
are acting toward him.

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

#31565

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:02 PM, alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 9:53 am, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To take it a little further, what if I said I got gypped. I think it
>> goes to gypsy's. Was it racist?
>
> Ignorant racism is still racism.

No it's not, that 's why it's called ignorant...you just didn't know
what it meant at the time, and correct yourself afterwards.

 Historical racism is still racism.

No shit Sherlock.

>
>> It seems that we get too politically correct when we want to cherry
>> pick a comment for propaganda against someone.
>
> I think a person who tells others not to be sensitive to his actions
> towards them shouldn't post so many complaints about how other people
> are acting toward him.


-- 
Best Regards,
David Hutto
CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com

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

#31571

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:47 PM, wu wei <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> It's intended to be involved, witty, and as informed as I can be
>
>
> You fail on every level here.

According to your opinion.
>
>>
>> No, I'm fine a s a monk until recently, when medical, and faith issues
>> arose, and for your information, I've been laid quite a few times, and
>> won't have a problem doing so again.
>
>
> Yeah, you're full of confidence in yourself, you're not defensive at all.


Confidence is a defence against individuals who want to cherry pick,
and bring you down with propaganda that lacks anymore than a textbook
approach...show some innovation please.

>
>> I've been out here 6-7 years getting my life together without chasing
>> pussy.
>
>
> When you use terms like "chasing pussy", that's probably a good indication
> of why it's been 7 years since you last had any satisfying interaction with
> a woman.

That was a character flaw i had..."doc". I had to rid an addiction to
saving women who were in bad situations, and clarify my mind as to who
I want as a prime mate.


>
>> Not self righteous, again wrong. I've been the bad guy, and now I have
>> to watch out for them, which seems self righteous, but it's merely the
>> fact that I have to have a good public persona now.
>
>
> But you _don't_ have a good public persona. You come across as someone
> desperately trying to convince people that you're smarter and better than
> you are.
>

Again, just your opinion of a few threads. When insulted, you either
insult back, or ascert your intelligence. I took the higher ground.
>> Go get to know a real few arrogant individuals, with superiority
>> complexes before you comment.
>
>
> I have. I'm speaking from direct experience here, and you demonstrate a lot
> in common with such people.

You lack serious perspective n this subject, so stop trying to say I'm arrogant.

>>
>> If anything, I have an inferiority complex that comes out when I'm
>> downed by someone.
>
>
> Then don't react the way you do, because it doesn't do you any favours.
>
>> It's been that way in my socioeconomic upbringing I'm trying to
>> overcome, so you're preaching to the choir.
>
>
> Oh boo hoo, you've had pain in your life, you're surely the only person on
> the planet.
>

I give myself the same fucking thought everytime I have to feel
symptoms which I',m trying to afford the cost to diagnose , and fix.

So cry me a fucking river, and boohoo about my vulgar language.
>>
>> Doubt it. After 6-7 years of leaving sluts, and whores alone, I've
>> realized I need to be secure emotionally, physically, financially, and
>> spiritually.
>
>
> You don't see the hypocrisy in claiming you're after _spiritual_ and
> _emotional_ security and calling women "sluts and whores"?
>
You should have met them. They may have become more, but that's who I
was trying to save from other bad relationships. Use the little
psychology you understand, and you'll see I was trying to save my
mother.








> You're going to die alone with that attitude.
>
>>
>> Go insult a troll, because I like to fish off the top of the bridge.
>
>
> Things like this really aren't as witty as you think.

Your ego couldn't take the insult, could it?

>
>>
>> Well above trash such as yourself who like to bring people down for
>> fun due to their own superiority complexes.
>
>
> No, I just like highlighting the huge discrepancies between what people
> think & say they are and how they behave, especially when that person is a
> hugely disruptive asshole who thinks the incomprehensible crap they write
> assists people in learning Python.

Provide some references please, instead of a blanketed insult.

>
> You're in serious need of self-reflection at a level I'm not convinced
> you're capable of.

You should hear some thought projection I have about my own past behaviour then.

 Maybe you should start another crybaby thread on the

You mean a request for social critique that improves myself, then I'll
throw a temper tantrum. Maybe you wanna come watch, or maybe you have
the balls to participate(but that would be just my old behaviour).

> Python list to find out whether everyone else agrees. Or hell, you're the
> CEO of your company, I'm sure you have dozens if not hundreds of employees
> you can lean on for moral support, right?
Just started, so I'm a startup, and you just insulted the majority of
the list with good dreams of being a productive citizen of society.


-- 
Best Regards,
David Hutto
CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com

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

#31573

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.

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

#31576

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".



-- 
Best Regards,
David Hutto
CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web