On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you really forward a private email to a public mailing list without
> permission?
> Are you really that fucking ignorant of the law?
This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a
loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that.
Plus, that is the standard. We discuss this as a community. You never
stated you wanted it private, ad if you had, it would have remained
that way.
On Oct 18, 2:05 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a
> loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that.
I'm not in America, so your constitution means nothing to me.
> Plus, that is the standard. We discuss this as a community. You never
> stated you wanted it private, ad if you had, it would have remained
> that way.
I *sent you a private response* because it wasn't relevant to the
list. You chose to re-include the list, which is an active decision
you had to make. That is not acceptable behaviour, nor is it the
"standard".
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [a public response to a private email]
> I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email
> exchange*, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with this
> list.
Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all".
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Did you really forward a private email to a public mailing list without
>> permission?
>> Are you really that fucking ignorant of the law?
> This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a
> loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that.
Common misconception. The First Amendment to the United States
Constitution prohibits the *making of any law* that restricts certain
freedoms. It does not have ANYTHING to do with "I have first amendment
rights to say whatever I like". It is restrictions on Congress and the
state governments in the US of A.
Even if python-list were purely US-based, it still wouldn't apply.
Deliberately forwarding a private email without permission is a breach
of courtesy, more than of the law. It may be possible to make a civil
case of the breach of privacy in some jurisdictions, but mainly it's
just a gross discourtesy. (Assuming, that is, that the email wasn't
actually intended to be public. I've at times responded on-list to a
private email, but with a tag at the top explaining that.)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:11 AM, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:05 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a
>> loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that.
> I'm not in America, so your constitution means nothing to me.
But you apparently want freedom of speech.
>> Plus, that is the standard. We discuss this as a community. You never
>> stated you wanted it private, ad if you had, it would have remained
>> that way.
> I *sent you a private response* because it wasn't relevant to the
> list. You chose to re-include the list,
No, lots of people hit 'reply' instead of 'reply all'. Read around, it
gets stated all the time.
The main response is don't reply privately, keep it on list, unless
otherwise stated.
which is an active decision
> you had to make.
Based on certain list's rules. Hit 'reply all'
That is not acceptable behaviour, nor is it the
> "standard".
That's debatable, unless you implied that was your intention.
As I've mentioned before...people can start arguing, and one replies
off list, and then goes back on the list after a private e-mail, and
says ahah, see how they're acting, and they never saw the private
reply you sent.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [a public response to a private email]
>> I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email
>> exchange*, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with this
>> list.
> Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all".
That's not actually true either. The convention is to reply to the
list with material that is edifying to the list, or to the author
alone if the situation calls for it. Using reply-all sends the author
a copy as well as putting it on-list, which is unnecessary (unless
it's likely the author isn't subscribed). It's completely unnecessary
to include the list in what's not of interest.
And here I am, posting on-list something that's completely necessary.
(sigh* Alex, Dwight, can you two please cool down a bit? A little
calmness would improve this discussion significantly, methinks.
On Oct 18, 2:26 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But you apparently want freedom of speech.
I can't even begin to address this idiocy.
> As I've mentioned before...people can start arguing, and one replies
> off list, and then goes back on the list after a private e-mail, and
> says ahah, see how they're acting, and they never saw the private
> reply you sent.
And yet that's *exactly* what *you* have just done.
Should I forward to this list all of the offensive private posts that
you've sent me? Of course not, because you sent them to me privately
and they're *not relevant to this list*.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Did you really forward a private email to a public mailing list without
>>> permission?
>>> Are you really that fucking ignorant of the law?
>> This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a
>> loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that.
> Common misconception. The First Amendment to the United States
> Constitution prohibits the *making of any law* that restricts certain
> freedoms. It does not have ANYTHING to do with "I have first amendment
> rights to say whatever I like".
Your constitutional opinion, but not everyone's.
And I quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or -->abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press<--; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It is restrictions on Congress and the
> state governments in the US of A.
> Even if python-list were purely US-based, it still wouldn't apply.
> Deliberately forwarding a private email without permission is a breach
> of courtesy, more than of the law.
How many emails end in hit 'reply all'?
It may be possible to make a civil
> case of the breach of privacy in some jurisdictions, but mainly it's
> just a gross discourtesy.
It wasn't stated that that was their intent. I though it was the
regular hit 'reply', instead of hit 'reply all'
(Assuming, that is, that the email wasn't
> actually intended to be public. I've at times responded on-list to a
> private email, but with a tag at the top explaining that.)
That I failed to do. To say please hit 'reply all'
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:21 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all".
> Then why did you actively re-add the list as a recipient when I had
> removed it?
How was I supposed to know you removed it. Usually it's an accident to
hit just 'reply'. Check around, and ask.
On Oct 18, 9:06 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [a public response to a private email]
> I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email
> exchange*, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with this
> list.
Speaking generally I agree.
Specifically one of the points discussed in this same thread --
correcting/reprimanding unacceptable public-forum behavior with
private emails -- this looks like a textbook example of why/when it
does not work and serves to underscore rurpy's point that ignoring may
be the best tactic in the long run.
Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed:
Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not
seem to me that this was the case you were talking of, was it?
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 2:02 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [a public response to a private email]
>>> I really don't appreciate you pushing public a *private email
>>> exchange*, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with this
>>> list.
>> Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all".
> That's not actually true either. The convention is to reply to the
> list with material that is edifying to the list, or to the author
> alone if the situation calls for it. Using reply-all sends the author
> a copy as well as putting it on-list, which is unnecessary (unless
> it's likely the author isn't subscribed). It's completely unnecessary
> to include the list in what's not of interest.
> And here I am, posting on-list something that's completely necessary.
> (sigh* Alex, Dwight, can you two please cool down a bit? A little
> calmness would improve this discussion significantly, methinks.
Sometimes an e-mail doesn't convey tone, or pitch of voice. If it were
face to face, instead of text, things would be much different.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Common misconception. The First Amendment to the United States
>> Constitution prohibits the *making of any law* that restricts certain
>> freedoms. It does not have ANYTHING to do with "I have first amendment
>> rights to say whatever I like".
> Your constitutional opinion, but not everyone's.
> And I quote:
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or -->abridging the freedom
> of speech, or of the press<--; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That's one entire sentence. "Congress shall make no law... abridging
the freedom..." - it's ONLY preventing Congress's actions. The
Constitution was subsequently applied by the Supreme Court to state
governments as well, but it's still only restricting state and federal
law-makers.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2:26 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But you apparently want freedom of speech.
> I can't even begin to address this idiocy.
Then don't(your idiocy acknowledges your own misunderstanding),
because you don't want the freedom to speak publicly, so don't reply,
or send messages anymore, because your stance is weak, and your word
meaningless if you don't like that particular amendment.
>> As I've mentioned before...people can start arguing, and one replies
>> off list, and then goes back on the list after a private e-mail, and
>> says ahah, see how they're acting, and they never saw the private
>> reply you sent.
> And yet that's *exactly* what *you* have just done.
No, I included everything that was said, no editing. So stop the
bullshit PR attack, you're not good at it.
> Should I forward to this list all of the offensive private posts that
> you've sent me? Of course not, because you sent them to me privately
Unaware, and of course send them, and make sure they're not falsified
data, because I have google copies of what I've sent..
> and they're *not relevant to this list*.
That's why they have an OT term.It's just conversation other than the
mundane "How do you print a digit?"
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Dwight Hutto<dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Chris Angelico<ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Common misconception. The First Amendment to the United States
>>> Constitution prohibits the *making of any law* that restricts certain
>>> freedoms. It does not have ANYTHING to do with "I have first amendment
>>> rights to say whatever I like".
>> Your constitutional opinion, but not everyone's.
>> And I quote:
>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or -->abridging the freedom
>> of speech, or of the press<--; or the right of the people peaceably to
>> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> That's one entire sentence. "Congress shall make no law... abridging
> the freedom..." - it's ONLY preventing Congress's actions. The
> Constitution was subsequently applied by the Supreme Court to state
> governments as well, but it's still only restricting state and federal
> law-makers.
> ChrisA
My god people, can we just drop this and move on already? No one's opinions are going to be changed, and there's no magic bullet argument that will shut down someone you disagree with. Swallow your bile and carry on.
Sorry to be jumping in like this, I'm just frustrated that THIS is what's the community is going to spend its time on. Seems rather much a waste.
--Jonathan
(Also, someone was an idiot on the internet. OH NO! MUST BRING FORTH MY EPIC TYPING FINGERS. Isn't there an xckd about this?)
On 18 October 2012 00:36, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed:
> Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not
> seem to me that this was the case you were talking of, was it?
Sorry, but I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. Could you rephrase it?
...
I've just been sitting here horrified for the last half hour, trying
to work out if there's anything productive I can say, either onlist or
privately, to help defuse this situation.
And ... well, probably not, but here goes anyway:
David: I believe that you are trying to engage positively with this
forum. I also believe that you have a tendency to misinterpret some
comments as personal attacks[1], and to respond by "giving [at least]
as good as you get". I don't think that's working out in the way you
intend, and I think you'd improve your own standing here by taking a
step back when you perceive an attack, counting to ten, taking a deep
breath, and any other applicable cliché that generally gets trotted
out in situations like this. Sometimes they're clichés because they're
true.
Alex23: I agree that publishing private correspondence is a breach of
etiquette. I also think that continuing to engage with David over this
isn't going to help anyone, at least while you're both so pissed off.
Got to dash - I think they need me to oversee some Middle East peace talks ;-)
While I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to be less aggressive on this list, I think you have crossed a line by forwarding the contents of an obviously personal email containing CLEARLY PRIVATE MATTERS to a public list without permission, without even anonymising it.
Not cool mate, not cool.
The first amendment doesn't excuse this. You don't get to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre either.
I think you owe Wu Wei, and Alex, apologies.
Re-adding the list to a clearly Python-related question to the list is marginally okay. (I normally wouldn't do it, but some people do.) Adding the list to a personal comment is not.
And quite frankly, I sympathise with how hard your life has been, but this isn't your personal support group. There is such a thing as too much sharing.
My personal advice is that I think you need to take a break for a couple of days and then come back focused on Python, rather than on defending yourself against real or imagined slights. I'm not your dad and I'm not sending you to your room, but sometimes a man has to know when it's best to just walk away and let things cool off, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.
> While I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to be less aggressive on
> this list, I think you have crossed a line by forwarding the contents of
> an obviously personal email containing CLEARLY PRIVATE MATTERS to a
> public list without permission, without even anonymising it.
I get that it was a in a thread, and we;'re always told to respond
all, unless otherwise asked, and they didn't directly ask, so I
responded back to the list like the etiquette dictates.
> Not cool mate, not cool.
> The first amendment doesn't excuse this. You don't get to shout "Fire!"
> in a crowded theatre either.
That's an over exaggeration of whats going on.
> I think you owe Wu Wei, and Alex, apologies.
But only for thinking that it's always reply all, and I do apologize,
but they should have directly requested it in the email. If you follow
the discussions here, again, it's always you should 'reply all'.
> Re-adding the list to a clearly Python-related question to the list is
> marginally okay. (I normally wouldn't do it, but some people do.) Adding
> the list to a personal comment is not.
You know damn good and well opinions flutter like butterflies around here.
> And quite frankly, I sympathise with how hard your life has been,
Don't, it's made me a better person to see the very worst people in
life, be kind of a bad ass, and become better at being a stable
person.
It made me who I'm becoming, even if who I am now is just a transitional.
but
> this isn't your personal support group. There is such a thing as too much
> sharing.
It was mainly a business image, and wanting to revise myself, which
I'm doing constantly. Most here are professionals, so I asked, and in
the middle of a small flame war.
> My personal advice is that I think you need to take a break for a couple
> of days and then come back focused on Python, rather than on defending
> yourself against real or imagined slights. I'm not your dad and I'm not
> sending you to your room, but sometimes a man has to know when it's best
> to just walk away and let things cool off, regardless of who is right and
> who is wrong.
I'm trying, but I do like to defend myself line for line.
I can cool off, but can they lay off while I'm doing it, and do the
same themselves?
On Oct 18, 10:18 am, Zero Piraeus <sche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> On 18 October 2012 00:36, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed:
> > Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not
> > seem to me that this was the case you were talking of, was it?
> Sorry, but I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. Could you rephrase it?
Not that I mind: People much wiser than we have expressed that war is
the most horrible thing in the universe and David is by his own
admission a war-damaged individual.
If Steven chooses to engage him thats his call
If Alex chooses to fight with him thats his
I am betting that in the end, rurpy's suggestion -- Ignoring is the
best policy -- or Ben's -- Respond carefully, minimally and with
caution -- is what everyone will have to come to.
This does not mean I dont wish him well, just that I realize that the
sphere of my action and influence are intrinsically limited.
And all this misses the point that you started this thread (I think)
with Etienne-Steven in mind not David-RestOfTheWorld.
(Assuming this conjecture) I would like to say:
Etienne is not a 'dick' or a 'troll' just a human being with the same
buggy wetware that we all have whose logic goes: If you call me an
asshole (when justified) I'll call you can asshole (even if not).
Likewise Alex calling David racist may be justified but is not
helpful.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:19 AM, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 10:18 am, Zero Piraeus <sche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> :
>> On 18 October 2012 00:36, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Unfortunately, I feel this whole discussion/thread has got derailed:
>> > Zero you started this thread about aggressive behavior. It does not
>> > seem to me that this was the case you were talking of, was it?
>> Sorry, but I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. Could you rephrase it?
> Not that I mind: People much wiser than we have expressed that war is
> the most horrible thing in the universe and David is by his own
> admission a war-damaged individual.
> If Steven chooses to engage him thats his call
> If Alex chooses to fight with him thats his
> I am betting that in the end, rurpy's suggestion -- Ignoring is the
> best policy -- or Ben's -- Respond carefully, minimally and with
> caution -- is what everyone will have to come to.
> This does not mean I dont wish him well, just that I realize that the
> sphere of my action and influence are intrinsically limited.
> And all this misses the point that you started this thread (I think)
> with Etienne-Steven in mind not David-RestOfTheWorld.
> (Assuming this conjecture) I would like to say:
> Etienne is not a 'dick' or a 'troll' just a human being with the same
> buggy wetware that we all have whose logic goes: If you call me an
> asshole (when justified) I'll call you can asshole (even if not).
> Likewise Alex calling David racist may be justified but is not
> helpful.
> [BTW This was enunciated 2000 years ago by a clever chap: Love your
> enemies; drive them crazy
That only works if they're not already insane.
Otherwise you're just prodding a cornered beast.
]
-- Best Regards,
David Hutto
CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com
The catch to that is that the software that is liberally accepting
anything is quite vulnerable to attacks. Windows has a checksum in the
exe header that's been there since the MSDOS days, and to the best of my
knowledge has never been checked by the loader. So even accidental file
corruption goes unnoticed.
Likewise IP and other protocol accept all sorts of retries and
fragments, and since different OS's overlay those pieces with differing
rules, it's quite common for different OS's to see different versions of
the packets after reconstruction. So Intrusion detection software (sort
of like anti-virus) can be fooled.
Goals have changed over the years, and what was a good idea 20 years ago
is pretty painful now.
I suppose the human analogy might be the trusting people who believe any
scammer that comes along. As for me, I'd rather be sometimes fooled
than never to trust anyone. So, although I can argue against it, I
pretty much agree with the robustness principle.
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> David,
>> While I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to be less aggressive on
>> this list, I think you have crossed a line by forwarding the contents of
>> an obviously personal email containing CLEARLY PRIVATE MATTERS to a
>> public list without permission, without even anonymising it.
> I get that it was a in a thread, and we;'re always told to respond
> all, unless otherwise asked, and they didn't directly ask, so I
> responded back to the list like the etiquette dictates.
I know that you have apologized for this later in the email, and I appreciate that, but I would like to explicitly state some of the expectations of etiquette for this list. I don't mean to chastise excessively.
I'm afraid that you were either misinformed, or you misinterpreted what you were told. When someone sends you an email that is *only addressed to you*, you should not forward that to the list without getting explicit permission. It is possible that someone just forgot to include the list, but it's also quite likely that they meant it only for you, particularly when it is of a more personal nature. Etiquette dictates that you should not assume that they meant to include the list. If you are in doubt, you must ask. This rule trumps others if you think there is a conflict in interpretation.
If you do make a private response, it is always a good idea to explicitly state so, but the lack of such a statement is not an excuse for the recipient to make the email public. The default assumption must be that they meant to send it to exactly those people they actually sent it to.
Thank you for listening.
-- Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
