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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #62585 > unrolled thread

Re: Airplane mode control using Python?

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: Airplane mode control using Python? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-23 14:33 +1100
    Re: Airplane mode control using Python? rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-22 20:52 -0800
      Re: Airplane mode control using Python? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-23 16:37 +1100
        Re: Airplane mode control using Python? rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-22 22:59 -0800
          Re: Airplane mode control using Python? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-23 19:46 +1100
            Re: Airplane mode control using Python? rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-24 17:37 -0800
              Re: Airplane mode control using Python? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-25 21:56 +1100
                Re: Airplane mode control using Python? rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-25 14:16 -0800
          Re: Airplane mode control using Python? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-23 09:18 +0000
        Re: Airplane mode control using Python? rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-22 22:09 -0800
          Re: Airplane mode control using Python? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-23 10:39 +0000
          Re: Airplane mode control using Python? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-24 03:12 +1100
      Re: Airplane mode control using Python? Kevin Peterson <qh.resu01@gmail.com> - 2013-12-23 11:08 +0530
      Re: Airplane mode control using Python? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-12-23 06:34 +0000
      Google Groups + this list Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-12-23 06:48 -0500
        Re: Google Groups + this list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-24 17:44 -0800
          Re: Google Groups + this list Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-12-25 23:11 -0500
            Re: Google Groups + this list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-26 12:11 -0800
          Re: Google Groups + this list Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-26 15:17 +1100
            Re: Google Groups + this list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-25 21:13 -0800
              Re: Google Groups + this list Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-26 23:41 +1100
                Re: Google Groups + this list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-26 12:04 -0800
                  Re: Google Groups + this list Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-12-27 07:31 -0500
          Re: Google Groups + this list Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-12-26 10:04 +0530
          Re: Google Groups + this list Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-12-26 08:20 -0500
      Re: Google Groups + this list Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-12-24 03:22 +1100
        Re: Google Groups + this list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-24 17:47 -0800
          Re: Google Groups + this list Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-12-25 07:19 -0500
            Re: Google Groups + this list Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-12-26 01:26 +1100
            Re: Google Groups + this list rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-12-25 14:09 -0800
          Re: Google Groups + this list Joel Goldstick <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> - 2013-12-25 07:25 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#62737 — Re: Google Groups + this list

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12/25/2013 09:17 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>[...]
>> Or maybe I should have just filtered everything from Google Groups
>> into the bit bucket, because responding just creates threads like
>> this. Do you honestly think that would be better? No response at all
>> if the post comes from GG?
>
> Do you really think that if *you* ignore Google Groups, then
> Google Groups posters will get "no response at all"?  Could
> you please turn down your ego a little?

That's not what I said, and you're still ignoring the primary thrust
of my posts. I'm done debating this with you; I'll continue to push
people toward options that don't have bugs that inflict themselves on
everyone else, and if you continue apologizing for something that
needs to be fixed, that's your business.

ChrisA

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

#62785 — Re: Google Groups + this list

On 12/26/2013 05:41 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 12/25/2013 09:17 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>[...]
>>> Or maybe I should have just filtered everything from Google Groups
>>> into the bit bucket, because responding just creates threads like
>>> this. Do you honestly think that would be better? No response at all
>>> if the post comes from GG?
>>
>> Do you really think that if *you* ignore Google Groups, then
>> Google Groups posters will get "no response at all"?  Could
>> you please turn down your ego a little?
> 
> That's not what I said, 

On rereading, my interpretation of your statement still seems 
legitimate.  If you don't clarify, then my response can only 
be: yes, that *is* (in effect) what you said.

> and you're still ignoring the primary thrust
> of my posts. 

I wasn't sure what your "primary thrust" was, I asked you 
to remind me and you failed to respond.

If you're referring to, 
  "Why, rurpy, do you continue to support, apologize for, 
  and argue in favour of, a piece of software that is ...."

1. You are continuing to try to misdirect from, *my* primary 
thrust: that in your zeal to make people stop using GG you 
crossed a line by posting some derogatory claims about GG 
that you can not support. I am still waiting for a credible 
explanation from you about how you know that GG is corrupting 
whitespace.

2. I've addressed why I oppose trying to drive people away 
from GG many times, among others in:
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/FFAe5sJ7kQ4/SXXunRofxtEJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/9txi2cB7ppMJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/WRZDOzZd76oJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/41hZ3Si5G0cJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/jKu57BLvqIUJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/wh9MzFEHDMM/iwZKSMeRwjQJ
Those are some from 2012 (don't have time to find 2013 ones). 
Many are direct responses to you, most or all are in threads 
you posted in.  Please, instead of just ignoring what I wrote
and repeating the same charges ad infinitum, point out why 
the answers I've already given are wrong.

3. I answered you in a previous post in this thread referring 
you to my explanation of your issue in a concurrent reply to 
Ned B.  Unfortunately that previous post got stuck in the ether
somewhere and just popped out this morning (not your fault of 
course that it wasn't available till now).

4. Virtually all of my responses in the GG wars have been 
only in response to correct or point out some inaccurate 
(IMO) information posted by someone else (often you): that 
Usenet/mailing list/whatever is easy to use as GG, that 
"the community" opposes posts from GG, that the majority 
of people here don't read posts from GG, that GG is 
irredeemably "broken", the alternatives have no significant
problems, that reading GG posts make you go blind, and many 
more I can't recall.  Seldom if ever have I initiated any of 
these debates and have ignored many erroneous or inflammatory 
posts that I could (and perhaps should) have responded to.   

> I'm done debating this with you; I'll continue to push
> people toward options that don't have bugs that inflict themselves on
> everyone else, 

It is the "pushing" I object to.  I've repeatedly said 
if you want tell people about other options you think are 
better and why, I'm all for it.  But making up negative 
stuff up about GG (or anything that you personally don't 
like) should  be totally unacceptable here, and I think it 
is a shame (and sadly illustrative of the deterioration 
of this group) that you (and some others) proudly announce 
your intent to continue.

> and if you continue apologizing for something that
> needs to be fixed, that's your business.

I'm not "apologizing" for GG.  I have acknowledged the problems
their FUd quoting creates.  I have in my own small way tried 
to improve things.  You seem to think though that your opinion 
of how to deal with the problem should be the law.  Again I 
ask you to check your ego. 

Finally, I remind you that the only reason I am in this thread 
is because *you* posted some negative claims about GG that you 
can't support and aren't man enough to admit to.

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

#62795 — Re: Google Groups + this list

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:04:22 -0800 (PST), rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 12/26/2013 05:41 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/25/2013 09:17 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>>[...]
> >>> Or maybe I should have just filtered everything from Google 
Groups
> >>> into the bit bucket, because responding just creates threads 
like
> >>> this. Do you honestly think that would be better? No response 
at all
> >>> if the post comes from GG?
> >>
> >> Do you really think that if *you* ignore Google Groups, then
> >> Google Groups posters will get "no response at all"?  Could
> >> you please turn down your ego a little?
> > 
> > That's not what I said, 


> On rereading, my interpretation of your statement still seems 
> legitimate.  If you don't clarify, then my response can only 
> be: yes, that *is* (in effect) what you said.

It was and still is clear to me what Chris meant. With such a filter, 
 clearly he would be making no response at all to such a post.

-- 
DaveA

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

#62724 — Re: Google Groups + this list

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
>> Kevin started this thread by asking a question.  Chris responded without
>> helping the OP, and talked about Google Groups instead.  That's not good.
>
> The only reason I didn't directly help the OP was because the code was
> misformatted and it was necessary to request that it be reposted.
> Perhaps I should have been clearer in saying "Please repost your code
> with correct formatting", but there wasn't much else I could have
> done.
>
> Or maybe I should have just filtered everything from Google Groups
> into the bit bucket, because responding just creates threads like
> this. Do you honestly think that would be better? No response at all
> if the post comes from GG?

I think Ned is being exceptionally helpful in keeping this list in order
And you are being inflammatory in the above given that Ned just said:

> I'm not telling people not to use Google Groups.  In fact, I've said twice now in
> this thread that we have to accept Google Groups postings as part of this list.
> My point is simply that we have to take care not to turn this list into a list
> about Google Groups, one way or the other.

You are of course free to filter out GG posts if you wish -- thats a
separable question.

[And I reiterate my request to check why I have been kicked off from
GG and have to use mail. As rurpy said I cant handle a mailing list
volume of this scale for too long]

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

#62739 — Re: Google Groups + this list

On 12/25/13 11:17 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
>> Kevin started this thread by asking a question.  Chris responded without
>> helping the OP, and talked about Google Groups instead.  That's not good.
>
> The only reason I didn't directly help the OP was because the code was
> misformatted and it was necessary to request that it be reposted.
> Perhaps I should have been clearer in saying "Please repost your code
> with correct formatting", but there wasn't much else I could have
> done.

In this case, the OP provided an error message which showed that he 
wasn't getting a SyntaxError, so we could assume that the problem lay 
elsewhere.  It depends how much work you want to put into overlooking 
the mis-formatting of the code.

>
> Or maybe I should have just filtered everything from Google Groups
> into the bit bucket, because responding just creates threads like
> this. Do you honestly think that would be better? No response at all
> if the post comes from GG?

If *you* don't want to respond to any GG post, that will be fine: others 
will respond.  Even better is to respond to the posts to help the OP.

>
> ChrisA
>


-- 
Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com

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

#62637 — Re: Google Groups + this list

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
> I suggest the following:
>
> 1) Don't fault newcomers for using Google Groups.  Politely suggest
> alternatives, but only if you are also helping them, or if they have already
> gotten help.
>
> 2) Be careful how you rail against Google Groups.  When you call its results
> "crap" (for example), it can sound like an insult to the poster.  You mean
> to refer to Google Groups, but remember you are also referring to the
> poster's words.

I'm always careful of both of these. When I post alternatives to GG,
it's as part of another informative and on-topic post. If GG annoys me
but I don't have anything useful to say, I just move right along. (And
sometimes even if I do have something useful I could say. Sometimes
it's just not worth the hassle of cleaning up someone's misformatted
code so I can help them.)

> 3) Don't let's get into protracted internal debates about Google Groups.  It
> is for the moment at least, an unavoidable part of this list.

This is where I'm not so good :|

ChrisA

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

#62700 — Re: Google Groups + this list

On 12/23/2013 09:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:09 PM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 22, 2013 10:37:35 PM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Actually, formatting errors ARE often caused by Google Groups. Maybe
>>> it wasn't in this instance, but I have seen several cases of GG
>>> mangling code formatting, so this was a perfectly reasonable theory.
>>
>> What sort of formatting errors have you seen and how did you
>> determine it was Google Groups fault?  You would need to know
>> what the original message was, wouldn't you?  Perhaps these
>> were experiments you carried out yourself that you could share
>> with us?
> 
> Unless people were lying through their teeth when they said that their
> posted code had worked on their system,

I don't recall many whitespace-broken posts where
the poster claimed it wasn't what they posted.  In 
the cases I remember they are chided about not copying
and pasting and they either do so or don't respond
further.  

As for lying, people sometimes lie because they 
don't want to admit a mistake.  Or they often are 
just genuinely mistaken (memory is a complex and 
unreliable thing).  So your cynical presumption 
that they must be "lying through their teeth" or 
telling the truth is not is not credible.

And there is more than GG involved when you get a
message from GG.  It has long been a criticism of 
Python's significant whitespace that it is easily 
corrupted by message transports and those criticisms
predate GG.

So, assuming I was actually was unlucky enough to 
miss all the OP claims that GG FU'd their posts
that you claim to have seen, there are still plenty 
of other possible reasons for whitespace corruption
beyond GG.

> I can be pretty sure it was
> the fault of the delivery mechanism.

Bad logic.  *You* can be sure on whatever basis you 
want but to convince anyone else not predisposed to 
your biases, you need quite a bit more than your 
handwaving.

For all I know, you may be right.  But you've not
presented any evidence.  I post from GG and I've not 
noticed any whitespace corruption problems.

> Dig through the archive.

Err, no thanks.  I don't have hours to waste chasing 
down your dubious assertions.  How about you do that 
instead?  And show that the rate is much higher from 
GG than other sources proportionally and that difference
is due to GG and not just a difference in the experience
or skill of the posting populations, or gateway problems
etc.  

> Also,
> you haven't answered the other part of the post, the more important
> part.

Refresh my memory please.

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

#62702 — Re: Google Groups + this list

On 12/24/13 8:47 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 12/23/2013 09:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Also,
>> you haven't answered the other part of the post, the more important
>> part.
>
> Refresh my memory please.
>

Ugh, stop!  We get it: you don't think Google Groups is bad.  Or you 
think it can be made to work, or something.  That's fine.  But you are 
going to have to reason a little more subtly than, "all software has bugs."

As Chris has pointed out, the bugs in Google Groups affect every reader 
of the list.  Bugs in other software don't, at least not to the same extent.

Rurpy, you seem to be willfully ignoring the aggravation people are 
experiencing.  And people who hate Google Groups: you seem to be 
overlooking the fact that it's difficult for the users of Google Groups 
to understand its flaws, or to see the effect it has on the list.

I'll repeat my proposal (for everyone):

1) Don't fault newcomers for using Google Groups.  Politely suggest 
alternatives, but only if you are also helping them, or if they have 
already gotten help.

2) Be careful how you rail against Google Groups.  When you call its 
results "crap" (for example), it can sound like an insult to the poster. 
  You mean to refer to Google Groups, but remember you are also 
referring to the poster's words.

3) Don't let's get into protracted internal debates about Google Groups. 
  It is for the moment at least, an unavoidable part of this list.

Do you disagree?

-- 
Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com

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

#62705 — Re: Google Groups + this list

Ned Batchelder wrote:

> 1) Don't fault newcomers for using Google Groups.  Politely suggest
> alternatives, but only if you are also helping them, or if they have
> already gotten help.

+1

The *primary purpose* of this list is to help people with Python, not to
enforce some particular part of netiquette to the exclusion of all else.
The part that often gets forgotten is the part about avoiding rudeness and
flame wars, and encouraging a friendly, helpful, inclusive environment.
Netiquette helps with communication, but it is the communication which is
important, not the netiquette itself.


> 2) Be careful how you rail against Google Groups.  When you call its
> results "crap" (for example), it can sound like an insult to the poster.
> You mean to refer to Google Groups, but remember you are also
> referring to the poster's words.

+1

While it actually isn't true that you catch more flies with honey than with
vinegar, we don't actually want to catch flies. We want to communicate
with, and educate, human beings.


> 3) Don't let's get into protracted internal debates about Google Groups.
> It is for the moment at least, an unavoidable part of this list.

+1

"At the head of all understanding is realizing what is and what cannot be,
and the consoling of what is not in our power to change."
-- Solomon ibn Gabirol


Thank you Ned for saying all this.


-- 
Steven

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

#62715 — Re: Google Groups + this list

On 12/25/2013 05:19 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 12/24/13 8:47 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On 12/23/2013 09:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Also,
>>> you haven't answered the other part of the post, the more important
>>> part.
>> Refresh my memory please.
> 
> Ugh, stop!  

Stop what?  The context you quote has nothing to do
with what you write below.

> We get it: you don't think Google Groups is bad.  

That's not accurate.  I would never characterize GG
with such simplistic terms as "good" or "bad".

> Or you 
> think it can be made to work,

My own posts demonstrate that.  You don't agree?  Why
would you question that I think so?

> or something.  

"or something"?  In other words you *don't* get it.

> That's fine.  But you are 
> going to have to reason a little more subtly than, "all software has bugs."

I have tried to, both in the previous posts and in posts 
going back any months.  Either I have failed to make myself 
clear or (more likely since you (et.al.) consistently cut 
out context and fail to respond directly to what I wrote) 
you choose not to understand.

> As Chris has pointed out, the bugs in Google Groups affect every reader 
> of the list.  Bugs in other software don't, at least not to the same extent.

I understand that.  But (a hypothetical) *I* have to make 
a tradeoff between the features/misfeatures of GG vs TB 
or any other software.  You assume that the negative value 
you assign to GG apply to me.  Wrong.  While I understand 
(for example) that the FU'd quoting is annoying, I don't 
see why you can't just ignore it or skip reading my entire 
post if necessary.  (The non-hypothetical I actually almost 
never reads quoted stuff anyway -- I only do so rarely when
my memory and the main message leaving me unclear about 
something -- and even then it is often easier to go back 
to the OP given the spotty quality of quote trimming, as 
you demonstrate.)
 
And (as I pointed out, multiple times) you fail to evaluate 
as positively as (hypothetical again) I do the benefits GG 
has for me.  (Evidence: Chris' erroneous insistence that 
subscribing to the email list is as easy as using GG.)  So 
my evaluation of the overall benefit/cost for GG relative 
to some other choice is still positive even though your 
evaluation is otherwise.  And I distrust your evaluation
anyway since I *know* (from personal experience that GG 
is easier to use for me than a mailing list) that part of 
your evaluation is wrong. 

What you are saying is that I should use *your* evaluation
of GG (and other options) in making my tradeoffs.  And you 
get very angry when I won't do what you tell me to.

Secondly, the above is a side issue.  Please go back and 
reread the posts in question.  The main point (which you and
Chris lost or did a good job misdirecting away from) is that 
Chris claimed (and you found reasonable to believe) that GG 
corrupts white space in posts.  I have not seen any such 
effect, Chris' explanations were all handwaving, and so 
pending something more convincing I will offer the alternate
explanation that it is just more unjustified disparagement 
of GG and that it constitutes evidence that much of this 
anti-GG sentiment is driven by a "Lord of the Flies" effect
rather than rationality.

> Rurpy, you seem to be willfully ignoring the aggravation people are 
> experiencing.  

"willfully ignoring"?  For someone portraying himself as
a voice of reason in this discuss that's a pretty sleezy
thing to say.  I'll point out I put a small but significant 
amount of work into a wiki page to try to help reduce the 
aggravation people are experiencing which is more than you
or Chris have done.

> And people who hate Google Groups: you seem to be 
> overlooking the fact that it's difficult for the users of Google Groups 
> to understand its flaws, or to see the effect it has on the list.

And in my opinion, overreacting to GG annoyances.  Despite 
claims to the contrary, reading GG posts *will not* make 
you go blind, and they *can* be easily skipped if too 
annoying.  And from comments posted here, there are people 
who find these incessant GG discussions (and frequent 
troll baiting) far more annoying than posts from GG.

> I'll repeat my proposal (for everyone):
> 
> 1) Don't fault newcomers for using Google Groups.  Politely suggest 
> alternatives, but only if you are also helping them, or if they have 
> already gotten help.
> 
> 2) Be careful how you rail against Google Groups.  When you call its 
> results "crap" (for example), it can sound like an insult to the poster. 
>   You mean to refer to Google Groups, but remember you are also 
> referring to the poster's words.
> 
> 3) Don't let's get into protracted internal debates about Google Groups. 
>   It is for the moment at least, an unavoidable part of this list.
> 
> Do you disagree?

OK I give up.  You never even bothered to read what you're
responding to.  I specifically wrote regarding the above,
immediately following where you wrote the above:

>> That all sounds fine [...]

When you want to reply to what I wrote rather than what 
you want to believe, we can restart this conversation.
(And no, I don't read your question as directed at 
"everyone" since you would have, given my response, 
specifically excluded me if you'd meant that.)

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

#62703 — Re: Google Groups + this list

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com>wrote:

> On 12/24/13 8:47 PM, rurpy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On 12/23/2013 09:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>  Also,
>>> you haven't answered the other part of the post, the more important
>>> part.
>>>
>>
>> Refresh my memory please.
>>
>>
> Ugh, stop!  We get it: you don't think Google Groups is bad.  Or you think
> it can be made to work, or something.  That's fine.  But you are going to
> have to reason a little more subtly than, "all software has bugs."
>
> As Chris has pointed out, the bugs in Google Groups affect every reader of
> the list.  Bugs in other software don't, at least not to the same extent.
>
> Rurpy, you seem to be willfully ignoring the aggravation people are
> experiencing.  And people who hate Google Groups: you seem to be
> overlooking the fact that it's difficult for the users of Google Groups to
> understand its flaws, or to see the effect it has on the list.
>
> I'll repeat my proposal (for everyone):
>
>
> 1) Don't fault newcomers for using Google Groups.  Politely suggest
> alternatives, but only if you are also helping them, or if they have
> already gotten help.
>
> 2) Be careful how you rail against Google Groups.  When you call its
> results "crap" (for example), it can sound like an insult to the poster.
>  You mean to refer to Google Groups, but remember you are also referring to
> the poster's words.
>
> 3) Don't let's get into protracted internal debates about Google Groups.
>  It is for the moment at least, an unavoidable part of this list.
>
> Do you disagree?
>
>
> --
> Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com
>
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>


I'm with Ned.  Ned you do a great job lowering the temperature here.  This
group has lots of signal, but alas lots and lots of noise.

So, even though its not my holiday, Merry Christmas to all of you
knuckleheads, and good people!
-- 
Joel Goldstick
http://joelgoldstick.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web