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 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#31265 — Re: Aggressive language on python-list

Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
> years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
> so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a marked
> increase in aggressive language here lately, so I'm putting my head
> above the parapet to say that I don't appreciate it.

Thanks for speaking up, Zero. You are certainly not alone in this.

“Ignore the trolls” is not helpful advice if one wants to maintain a
useful and friendly environment. If the hostile behaviour you refer to
goes unchallenged, the helpful contributors become drowned out and
eventually leave from fatigue. So ignoring trolls is not enough if we
want the friendly and useful conversations to continue.

Ignoring hostile behaviour also sends the wrong signal to newcomers and
casual observers: that this is not a community which cares about
actively upholding good standards of behaviour.

What's needed, IMO, is a difficult balance: there needs to be calm,
low-volume, but firm response to instances of hostile behaviour, making
clear by demonstration – especially to the people only observing the
discussion – that such hostility is unwanted and not to be tolerated in
our community.

This is difficult to achieve, though, because if *lots* of people do it,
the thread turns into a dogpile that is also unhelpful, and usually
departs from civil and rational discussion quickly. All of this turns
away more good people (again, often people who otherwise weeren't
involved in the particular discussion), so is counter-productive.

So my request is: Be selective, and be calm.


Don't respond deep in an existing exchange, especially one where many
others have already responded to that person. Be selective and only
respond when yours will be one of the first in the thread. (And that's
not a mandate to have a quick trigger :-)

Don't keep responding in a series of exchanges; it makes your messages
difficult for newcomers to tell apart from the voluminous noise of the
troll.

When responding to a troll, don't be inflammatory yourself – that is
*exactly* what they seek, a continuation and escalation of the conflict.

Point out exactly what you think they're doing wrong, simply and calmly,
and don't go on at length. Keep the innocent reader in mind, don't care
too much about the troll reading your response.

To those who feel the need to “fight” the trolls: thank you for caring
enough about the Python community to try to defend it. But I'm concerned
that you tend to pour fuel on the flames yourself, and I hope you can
work to avoid becoming the monster you fight.

> And, yes, I know bringing it up could be construed as stoking the
> flames ... but, well, "silence = acquiescence" and all that.

Agreed. Thanks again.

-- 
 \        “Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave |
  `\                              trade was to the 16th.” —David Mertz |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#31281

On 10/14/2012 03:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote:> Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com> writes:
>[...]
> What's needed, IMO, is a difficult balance: there needs to be calm,
> low-volume, but firm response to instances of hostile behaviour, making
> clear by demonstration – especially to the people only observing the
> discussion – that such hostility is unwanted and not to be tolerated in
> our community.
>[...]

The problem with this is that while there may sometimes be a 
weak consensus, different people have different ideas about
what is "wrong".  Thus when a member of this esteemed group
was recently attacked as racist, for punning another member's
name when responding somewhat heatedly, I, according to your 
view, should have jumped in to point out unfair accusations 
of racism are not only wrong, but hurt the cause of anti-racism 
by devaluing such charges when they are legitimate.

No, what you propose will only reduce the signal to noise ratio
and increase the amount of off-topic arguments.

The old tried-and-true advise is still the best: don't feed the 
trolls.  Experience with three decades of mailing lists and usenet 
has shown that most of them give up and go somewhere else when 
they don't get a response. 

Of course this does not apply when you are the one attacked (or 
perceive you are) -- in that case your advice for a low-key
factual response is quite appropriate.  (And then drop it.)

> To those who feel the need to “fight” the trolls: thank you for caring
> enough about the Python community to try to defend it. But I'm concerned
> that you tend to pour fuel on the flames yourself, and I hope you can
> work to avoid becoming the monster you fight.
> 
>> And, yes, I know bringing it up could be construed as stoking the
>> flames ... but, well, "silence = acquiescence" and all that.
> 
> Agreed. Thanks again.

No.  Silence != acquiescence as a few minutes of thought will
show.  The fact that it is often repeated does not make it 
true.

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

#31282

On Oct 15, 1:22 pm, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Thus when a member of this esteemed group
> was recently attacked as racist, for punning another member's
> name when responding somewhat heatedly,

Again, there is a difference between "attacking" someone "as racist"
and *criticising* their *comments* as *possibly* racist. When the
person whose name was being punned said that they themselves were
unsure whether it was intended as a racial attack, then the behaviour
was worth commenting on.

If anything, I initially *joked* about it as a means of trying to
point out the issue in a non-offensive way. If there was any
"attacking" going on, it was in the criticised party's responses.

> hurt the cause of anti-racism

My response had nothing to do with "agendas" and "causes" and
everything to do with wanting to keep specific forms of discourse off
this list. I had identical issues with the same person's use of
"bitch" and "whore"; I cannot begin to fathom how stating that they're
unacceptable to use here is in any way damaging to the anti-sexism
position, or an attack on the person saying them.

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

#31416

On 10/14/2012 10:36 PM, alex23 wrote:> On Oct 15, 1:22 pm, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Thus when a member of this esteemed group
>> was recently attacked as racist, for punning another member's
>> name when responding somewhat heatedly,
> 
> Again, there is a difference between "attacking" someone "as racist"
> and *criticising* their *comments* as *possibly* racist. When the
> person whose name was being punned said that they themselves were
> unsure whether it was intended as a racial attack, then the behaviour
> was worth commenting on.

I just went back and reread what you and some others wrote
to make sure I was not misremembering and am comfortable 
sticking with my description.  (FTR, your initial response 
was "Please, don't be a dick.")

My intent was not to reargue that issue but to point out 
that different people have differing ideas on what is 
"acceptable" and "unacceptable" here and that if Ben 
Finney's advice to respond (in moderation) whenever one 
reads an "unacceptable" opinion is taken, one will create 
an environment in which troll's will flourish.

The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage 
others to do the same.

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

#31418

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:

> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
> same.

If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?

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"?

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? How will others know that I do not agree with your 
advice?


-- 
Steven

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

#31431

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:
> 
> > The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
> > same.
> 
> If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?
> 
> 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"?
> 
> 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? How will others know that I do not agree with your
> advice?
> 
> 

I agree completely. I was about to say that I was fine with meeting
known trolls with silence, but what happens when new or infrequent 
readers see the troll's writing with no one objecting? Are they to
ignore the troll or assume that the list condones the troll's words?

~Ramit


This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.  

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

#31434

On 10/16/2012 02:17 PM, Prasad, Ramit wrote:> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:
>> 
>> > The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
>> > same.
>> 
>> If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?
>> 
>> 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"?
>> 
>> 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? How will others know that I do not agree with your
>> advice?
> 
> I agree completely. I was about to say that I was fine with meeting
> known trolls with silence, but what happens when new or infrequent 
> readers see the troll's writing with no one objecting? Are they to
> ignore the troll or assume that the list condones the troll's words?

You do not give enough credit to people.  The vast majority 
of people are capable of recognizing offensive posts and 
recognizing that non-response to them is intentional.  I 
think it is absurd to think that most normal people will
see such posts and conclude that all Python programmers 
agree with them.  (No time to look it up but I vaguely
recall a long series of anti-semitic posts here that were 
largely ignored.  I've seen no evidence that there are 
people who brand the Python community as anti-semitic.)

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

#31433

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 that I would not use in a
rational discussion.  Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?

>> >> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
>> >> same.
> > 
> > If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?

Do you really think that in the vast majority of cases that
the poster is blithely unaware of the inflammatory nature 
of their post?  The whole point of trolling is to generate
responses by posting something inflammatory.  It sounds to
me like your view is that most such posts are made by people 
who are simply brand new to the internet (or at least the 
civilized parts of it) and thus, when their error is pointed 
out, will say thanks and change their ways.
 
> > 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?  (And
if you can't do that, maybe you should take it as a hint that
they're not particularly interested in your "help"?)

> > 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.  You would be bordering on delusional by 
thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".  

But even if you had a more rational response 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?

> > 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.

If it were possible to somehow have a single, reasonable
response generated to an offensive post, that would be great.
But I don't think that is possible.  Multiple people will 
feel the need to take on that duty.  Others will feel the
response is not strong enough or doesn't represent their
personal take and post their responses.  Some will respond
righteously to non-offensive posts.  (The use of "troll"
as a synonym for "I/we don't agree with you" is quite 
noticeable in this group.)  The perp will inevitably
followup with more offensive posts in response.  This 
is how things have worked since the invention of mailing
lists and why "don't feed the trolls" has served fairly
well for three decades.

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

#31450

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.


> 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?

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.


> 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.

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.


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.

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? Why on earth should I 
follow your advice if I think it is bad 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, and has 
the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has 
the potential to kill this community. 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.


> 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 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.


> But even if you had a more rational response 

*raises 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.


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

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.

What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are 
repugnant without talking about it?

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.

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




[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.


-- 
Steven

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

#31452

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:45:04 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> Dwight "call me David, but I can't be bothered changing my signature"
> Hutto's behaviour.

I withdraw this dig at David Hutto. It was unnecessary, and it turns out, 
wrong as he has now changed his signature.


-- 
Steven

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

#31454

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> 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.
>
>
>> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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? Why on earth should I
> follow your advice if I think it is bad 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, and has
> the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has
> the potential to kill this community. 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.
>
>
>> 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 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.
>
>
>> But even if you had a more rational response
>
> *raises 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.
>
>
>>> > 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. Without drawing explicit
> boundaries, how do people know what we consider beyond the boundary of
> acceptable behaviour?
>
> 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.
>
> What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are
> repugnant without talking about it?
>
> 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.
>
> Your opinion that we should all, somehow, agree on acceptable behaviour
> is culturally self-centred and rather naive. 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.
>
>
>
>
> [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.
>
>
> --
> Steven
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Bravo!...Encore, Encore!!!


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

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

#31457

As a casual observer of this list (and many others)

I can only say...

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.

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

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.

Let's be honest, does any of this crap have
anything to do with python, it's promotion,
or resolving anything related to making it
one of the most exciting languages I have
ever seen since C?

Jeesh!
K



On 10/16/12 9:01 PM, Dwight Hutto wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> 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.
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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? Why on earth should I
>> follow your advice if I think it is bad 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, and has
>> the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has
>> the potential to kill this community. 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.
>>
>>
>>> 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 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.
>>
>>
>>> But even if you had a more rational response
>>
>> *raises 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.
>>
>>
>>>>> 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. Without drawing explicit
>> boundaries, how do people know what we consider beyond the boundary of
>> acceptable behaviour?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are
>> repugnant without talking about it?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Your opinion that we should all, somehow, agree on acceptable behaviour
>> is culturally self-centred and rather naive. 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [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.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steven
>> --
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
> Bravo!...Encore, Encore!!!
>
>

-- 
This message is NOT encrypted
--------------------------------
Mr. Kristen J. Webb
Chief Technology Officer
Teradactyl LLC.
2301 Yale Blvd. SE.
Suite C7
Albuquerque, NM 87106
Phone: 1-505-338-6000
Email: kwebb@teradactyl.com
Web: http://www.teradactyl.com

	Home of the

  True incremental Backup System
--------------------------------
NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS: Any information contained in or attached to this message 
is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the 
intended recipient of this transmittal, you are hereby notified that you 
received this transmittal in error, and we request that you please delete and 
destroy all copies and attachments in your possession, notify the sender that 
you have received this communication in error, and note that any review or 
dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, this communication 
is expressly prohibited.


Regular internet e-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or 
accurate, and it should not be relied upon as such. If you prefer to communicate 
with Teradactyl LLC. using secure (i.e., encrypted and/or digitally signed) 
e-mail transmission, please notify the sender. Otherwise, you will be deemed to 
have consented to communicate with Teradactyl via regular internet e-mail 
transmission. Please note that Teradactyl reserves the right to intercept, 
monitor, and retain all e-mail messages (including secure e-mail messages) sent 
to or from its systems as permitted by applicable law.

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

#31460

On Oct 17, 1:54 pm, "Kristen J. Webb" <kw...@teradactyl.com> wrote:
> Let's be honest, does any of this crap have
> anything to do with python, it's promotion,
> or resolving anything related to making it
> one of the most exciting languages I have
> ever seen since C?

Python is more than the language, it's the community as well.
Discussing acceptable behaviour on a community mailing list is highly
relevant. Wanting to stop behaviour that could potentially drive
people away from the language is very much about promotion.

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

Yet you then chose to participate in a discussion about it. Because
that's what people do to discuss suitable behaviour.

I really don't get people who feel they need to share their opinion
when that opinion is that other people shouldn't share theirs.

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

#31462

On Oct 17, 9:25 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 1:54 pm, "Kristen J. Webb" <kw...@teradactyl.com> wrote:
>
> > It sucks for me to spend so much time filtering this BS.
>
> Yet you then chose to participate in a discussion about it. Because
> that's what people do to discuss suitable behaviour.
>
> I really don't get people who feel they need to share their opinion
> when that opinion is that other people shouldn't share theirs.

Ha Ha!
Let me try to restate alex without the barb.

What exactly do you (Kristen) find to be BS?

If its the one-line endorsement from David to Steven, Ive no comment
or opinion
If its the hundreds of lines of Steven's post, it would be good if
your mail-quoting singles that out.
If its Zero's OP then I am sorry, but many of us think that something
needs to be said.

In case its the length of Steven's post here's my attempt at improving
his S/N ration:
There are dicks and there are trolls. Behavior can be improved by
calling right things by the right names.

[My addition]:
1. There are no dicks and trolls; there is dick-ing and trolling
2. jmf's objections to python's unicode is classic trolling. David's
abusive language is dicking.
Using the right name helps to find the right strategy

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

#31473

On Oct 17, 2:43 pm, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me try to restate alex without the barb.

Do you offer this service for hire? :)

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

#31480

On Oct 17, 11:15 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2:43 pm, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me try to restate alex without the barb.
>
> Do you offer this service for hire? :)

Hmm now thats an idea…
Are you offering to hire? [Considering how many jobs Ive changed,
never know whats next!]

Rusi
--

http://blog.languager.org

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

#31474

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:25:38 -0700, alex23 wrote:

> I really don't get people who feel they need to share their opinion when
> that opinion is that other people shouldn't share theirs.

+1 QOTW

It makes me laugh when newcomers to this group stick their head up to 
chastise us for arguing about the culture of this group. The irony is 
that that is *precisely* what they too are doing.

In an ideal world, we'd all agree on what counts as acceptable behaviour, 
and stick to it, and discuss nothing but Python coding problems. But we 
don't live in an idea world, and there are disagreements and people 
behaving badly, and arguments about such, and meta-arguments about the 
arguments.

Welcome to humanity.

And more importantly, welcome to democracy -- this is not a dictatorship, 
there is no Supreme Glorious Leader who decides what is on- and off-
topic, no Thought Police to ban you for straying from the straight and 
narrow of what is allowed. And thank goodness for that. I've been on 
lists that do have such policies, and they tend to give lousy advice 
badly and have a culture of group-think.

Sure, it's frustrating to have to hit delete on a bunch of posts you 
don't care about. But that's true regardless of the topic or the list. 
Last night I deleted about 300 emails about designing a new asynchronous 
library that I had no desire to take part in. Did I post an angry screed 
calling it BS? No I did not, because I'm aware that even if I'm not 
interested in it, it is a part of Python culture and *somebody* needs to 
deal with it. I'm just glad its not me.



-- 
Steven

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

#31482

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> In an ideal world, we'd all agree on what counts as acceptable behaviour,
> and stick to it, and discuss nothing but Python coding problems. But we
> don't live in an idea world, and there are disagreements and people
> behaving badly, and arguments about such, and meta-arguments about the
> arguments.
>
> Welcome to humanity.

Every negative is a corrupted version of a positive. Why are there
these sorts of arguments? Because people care about the quality of
posts. Why have meta-arguments? Because Python programmers have the
sorts of brains that are good at (and enjoy) such.

> And more importantly, welcome to democracy -- this is not a dictatorship,
> there is no Supreme Glorious Leader who decides what is on- and off-
> topic, no Thought Police to ban you for straying from the straight and
> narrow of what is allowed. And thank goodness for that. I've been on
> lists that do have such policies, and they tend to give lousy advice
> badly and have a culture of group-think.

Correction: Welcome to anarchy. In a democracy, we'd all vote and
anyone voted out would be banned. Otherwise, absolutely agree.

> Sure, it's frustrating to have to hit delete on a bunch of posts you
> don't care about. But that's true regardless of the topic or the list.
> Last night I deleted about 300 emails about designing a new asynchronous
> library that I had no desire to take part in. Did I post an angry screed
> calling it BS? No I did not, because I'm aware that even if I'm not
> interested in it, it is a part of Python culture and *somebody* needs to
> deal with it. I'm just glad its not me.

Heh, I'm skipping all those posts too - but I'm confident Python will
be the better for that discussion.

I'm on many mailing lists. Some quiet, some noisy, some public, some
private (and don't knock the private ones - it's WAY better to use
Mailman than huge cc: lists), some courteous, some rude. Not one of
them is useless to the world. If you don't like python-list, maybe
there's another forum that's more to your liking - Python is big
enough to have several. :)

ChrisA

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

#31488

On 17/10/2012 07:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> And more importantly, welcome to democracy -- this is not a dictatorship,
>

Putting my pedantic hat on but there are few if any true democracies in 
the world.  Most governments are run on (mis)representative lines. Which 
reminds me I must restart my campaign to be the first world president. 
Seven votes at the last count, another 3.5 billion and I'm first past 
the post.

-- 
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

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

#31506

On 2012-10-17, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:25:38 -0700, alex23 wrote:
>
>> I really don't get people who feel they need to share their opinion when
>> that opinion is that other people shouldn't share theirs.
>
> +1 QOTW
>
> It makes me laugh when newcomers to this group stick their head up to 
> chastise us for arguing about the culture of this group. The irony is 
> that that is *precisely* what they too are doing.
>
> In an ideal world, we'd all agree on what counts as acceptable behaviour, 
> and stick to it, and discuss nothing but Python coding problems.

I disagree!  I think occasional off-topic meta-arguments can be
interesting and entertaining.

Yow!  Am I having a meta-meta-discussion yet?

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! -- I love KATRINKA
                                  at               because she drives a
                              gmail.com            PONTIAC.  We're going
                                                   away now.  I fed the cat.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web