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.
<steve+comp.lang.pyt...@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. :)
> 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.
On 2012-10-17, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@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.
On 2012-10-17, Terry Reedy <tjre...@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!!
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Grant Edwards <inva...@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 :)
> 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.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM, <ru...@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.
>>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.
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.
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM, <ru...@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".
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM, <ru...@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.
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 <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM, <ru...@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.
<steve+comp.lang.pyt...@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.
> 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.
> 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.
On 17 October 2012 19:53, 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?
"Racist" is a word with competing definitions, and intent is a factor
in some of them ... but yes, many people are offended by such use of
the word "gyp", just as they would be by similar use of "jew" as a
verb.
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.
<steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> 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 <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:48 AM, <ru...@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.
(rurpy, I know you already regret what you said so I'm not trying to
rub it in but I want to respond to what Steven said)
Steven, I almost followed that up with a post pointing out that it was
also quite offensive to you. But then I thought: No, Steven can look
after himself!
You're right, of course. There is nothing wrong with Asperger's. I
don't see much wrong with saying "Do you have Asberger's by any
chance?" (apart from the South-Park style mis-spelling) but I do see
something wrong with following it up with a patronising "Can you
understand..." as if only the other party having Asperger's can
explain your inability to understand one another.
To put it another way, I could say:
You're an idiot. Why can't you understand the simple things I say?
which is rude but it's rude at one (relevant) person. Instead I could
choose to say:
Do you have Down's? Can your mongoloid brain just not understand me?
which is rude at so many irrelevant people (I find it difficult to
write that since my cousin and some other very lovely people I know
have Down's but I that's roughly how I interpreted rurpy's comment the
*first* time I read it).
It came across to me as an offensive comment both to you and to people
with Asperger's that I would not tolerate generally. It is retracted
so I hold no ill will and don't want to dwell on it. In fact the very
quick retraction is a good thing to happen in relation to the many
things discussed above in this thread.
> It came across to me as an offensive comment both to you and to people
> with Asperger's that I would not tolerate generally. It is retracted
> so I hold no ill will and don't want to dwell on it. In fact the very
> quick retraction is a good thing to happen in relation to the many
> things discussed above in this thread.
> Oscar
Can we drop this please guys? Being diagnosed earlier this year with Asperger was the best thing that ever happened to me, but being constantly reminded about my younger son who has the condition far worse than me and is partially deaf to boot is getting up my nose.
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.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:02 PM, alex23 <wuwe...@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.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:47 PM, wu wei <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@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.
