Aggressive language on python-list

[Zero Piraeus]

:

Not sure exactly how to put this ...

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.

Robust disagreement is one thing [and can be quite enjoyable for those
of us merely spectating], but there's really no need to go around
calling people idiots at the drop of a hat. Quite apart from anything
else, when the contributor you're calling names is as helpful and
knowledgeable a member of the community as some of those targeted have
been, it makes you look a bit daft.

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

-[]z.

[Etienne Robillard]

> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

OT. you obviously has no clue what agressive behavior mean. :-)

So please continue with the passive tone saying nothing relevant
and login to facebook.


--
Etienne Robillard
Green Tea Hackers Club
Fine Software Carpentry For The Rest Of Us!
http://gthc.org/
er...@gthcfoundation.org

[Chris Angelico]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Zero Piraeus <sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. I agree that the aggressive language
lately has been a bit of a problem; but it's not incurable, and Dwight
Hutto seems to have recovered a more affable stance in his more recent
posts. (Thank you, Dwight/David.)

Etienne, we shall not trouble you for a demonstration of what you
think *real* aggressive behaviour is. Really, you've already given us
far more than the five-minute argument we paid for; though I suppose
you could be arguing on your own time. But I'm sure if you go to the
next room, you'll find "being dropped into the killfille lessons".
Better, better, but "Plonk". Hold your username here...

Wait, is that the wrong Python for this list? Oops. So confusing.

ChrisA

[Roel Schroeven]

Zero Piraeus schreef:

> :
>
> Not sure exactly how to put this ...
>

> 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.

Same here. I've been lurking here for a number of years, and I've always
regarded this list as an example of friendly civilized behavior, quite
exceptional on the Internet. I also have the impression that situation
is changing for the worse, and it worries me too.

--
"Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all
facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. Too often we enjoy the
comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F Kennedy

ro...@roelschroeven.net

[Dwight Hutto]

I'm not a know it all, but when attacked personally I defend myself,
and those can turn into flame wars.

Your plonks are irrelevant in terms of an argument ytou shouldn't
participate in.

These things can get nasty quick.

So if you have virgin eyes, then kill file it, but I like to think
Ioffer logical reasoning to those who respect a good programming
conversation.

If you want it, bring it, but it's mainly just regular computer
science discussion.
--
Best Regards,
David Hutto
CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com

[Ben Finney]

Zero Piraeus <sch...@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

[alex23]

On Oct 14, 3:39 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not a know it all, but when attacked personally I defend myself,
> and those can turn into flame wars.

I'm not wanting this to turn into another round of flames, but I do
want to highlight that there's a big difference between being asked to
moderate your language on a public list and a personal attack.

> Your plonks are irrelevant

> These things can get nasty quick.
> So if you have virgin eyes, then kill file it

> If you want it, bring it

Posturing like this doesn't help either and starts to fall into the
"aggressive language" territory this thread is concerned with.

[Zero Piraeus]

:

On 14 October 2012 17:58, Ben Finney <ben+p...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> 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.

Yep. I also think such responses are more effective coming from people
who already have some weight[1] around here (which was part of the
reason I was hesitant to bring it up myself). Good to see a few names
I'd put in that bracket appear in this thread :-)

-[]z.

[1] "Who are you calling fat?" replies in 3, 2 ...

[Michael Torrie]

On 10/13/2012 09:46 AM, Etienne Robillard wrote:
> OT. you obviously has no clue what agressive behavior mean. :-)
>
> So please continue with the passive tone saying nothing relevant
> and login to facebook.

There's a saying in English. Hit pigeons flutter. I have not been
impressed with your last few posts. In fact your last couple of posts
have been irrelevant and unhelpful to say the least. As you are looking
for a maintainer to take over your django add-on project, such an
attitude is not going to attract developers to take over your baby.
Some of this could be the language barrier, but really such posturing
isn't necessary.

[ru...@yahoo.com]

On 10/14/2012 03:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote:> Zero Piraeus <sch...@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.

[alex23]

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.

[ru...@yahoo.com]

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.

[Steven D'Aprano]

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

[Prasad, Ramit]

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.

[ru...@yahoo.com]

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.

[ru...@yahoo.com]

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.)

[Steven D'Aprano]

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

[Steven D'Aprano]

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

[rusi]

Trolling posts certainly exist. And when 'troll' becomes a short-form
for 'one-who-regularly-trolls' its fine as long as we remember that
its a metonymy.

When we forget
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg
should help by:
1. Showing how to deal with trolling
2. Reminding that such beings dont actually exist except as caricature

Coming to current misbehavior on the list -- specifically Etienne's
outburst against Steven,
I am reminded of a similar situation a year ago

Long thread -- Relevant starting is here
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2011-May/604893.html

Abusive post
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2011-May/604914.html

Maybe easier to read
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/17dca3bf467c9001/c53102a45da19386

The last thing that John Bokma posted (to the best of my knowledge)
was:

> Ben Finney <ben at benfinney.id.au> writes:
>
>>> Get a life. Or better, just fuck off and die. It will improve both the
>>> world and the Python community, of which you are nothing but a little,
>>> smelly shitstain.
>>
>> That abuse is entirely unwelcome in this community, against any person.
>> Please desist.

> You should have spoken up sooner, especially as the spokes person of
> "this" community. But every bully has is fan club.
>
> --
> John Bokma

If we think/feel that John Bokma was trolling then driving him off the
list was a good thing.
If not we need to question whether those actions were collectively
sound.

Specifically Steven's post that triggered Etienne's misbehavior is
this:

On Oct 5, 5:22 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:10:46 -0400, Etienne Robillard wrote:
> > Dear list,
>
> > Due to lack of energy and resources i'm really sad to announce the
> > removal ofnotmmfrom pypi and bitbucket.
>
> Well that's just rude. Even if you don't intend to maintain the software
> any more, why are you removing it from pypi? Since you say you are a fan
> of Open Source software, just flag it as unmaintained and leave it for
> somebody else to pick up.
>
> If you are going to abandon the project, release it on PyPI with a dual
> MIT and GPL licence, and let it be taken over by somebody else.
>
> If you were looking for sympathy here, starting off by removing your
> project from free hosting, then complaining that you can't pay for the
> non-free hosting, was NOT the right way to do so.
:

> Steven

I read Etienne as saying: 'I need money (or at least some sympathy)'
Steven is unequivocally saying 'You are not getting it from here'

Technically he is correct; humanly I am not so sure.

[I have a personal regret that I did not rebut Steven's rudeness with
a '... that is not necessarily the view of the whole group...'
I hesitated to do so because I am not adept at giving sympathy without
giving false hope and keeping the post at reasonable length.
Anyhow this (too long) post is an attempt at correcting that.]

In the earlier (Quora-thread) Terry Reedy's voice was most balanced
and sane; unfortunately covered in the 'dog-pile' of all the rest.

Hopefully he will put in his word here as well.
[And Zero thank you for starting this thread]

Rusi

- http://blog.languager.org

[Dwight Hutto]

> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Bravo!...Encore, Encore!!!

[Kristen J. Webb]

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

>> --
>> 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: kw...@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.

[alex23]

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.

[Ben Finney]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rusi]

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

[Terry Reedy]

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

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

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

--
Terry Jan Reedy

[alex23]

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? :)

[Steven D'Aprano]

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

[rusi]

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

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp....@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

[Mark Lawrence]

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.

[Grant Edwards]

On 2012-10-17, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp....@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.

[Grant Edwards]

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!!

[Chris Angelico]

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

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

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

ChrisA

[ru...@yahoo.com]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's so unique about it? I have seen such advice dozens
of times including in this list. (Oh wait, I just read ahead.
I'll respond below).

> So far, this has been the best advice you have given so far. My opinion
> is that there is a graduated response to dickish behaviour:
>
> * send a message telling the person they are acting unacceptably,
> preferably privately on a first offence to avoid public shaming
> (when possible -- lots of people aren't privately contactable
> for many reasons other than that they are trolls);
>
> * if the behaviour continues, make a public comment condemning
> that behaviour generally without engaging directly in a debate
> or "tit-for-tat" argument with the person.

That's great except that,
* Many people feel compelled to make the same public comment
* Tit-for-tat arguments usually do ensue.

> And for those who value their own peace and quiet over the community
> benefit:
>
> * block or killfile posts from that person so they don't
> have to be seen, preferably publicly.

* And all too often that is followed up with a public **plonk**.
(I really don't care that you (generic) killfiled someone.
I'm quite capable of deciding who to read on my own.)

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

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

But you wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I think your's is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But then you don't know what the response would have
been had you simply ignored him. It is however reasonable
to suppose that the (dozens? hundreds?) of followups that
those threads generated would not have occurred. So I
don't see that you've proven anything.

>>> > How will others know that I do not agree with your advice?
>>
>> Why is it so important to you that I and others know what you think?
>> Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I don't need to read your
>> explicit pronouncement to assume that you disagree with some repugnant
>> post.
>
> You are assuming we all agree on what is repugnant. That pretty much
> demonstrates that you have missed my point.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the lecture but I know all that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Angelico]

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.

Impenetrability!

ChrisA

[ru...@yahoo.com]

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

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

Ignore it *on the list*.

I hope that makes it clear enough?

[ru...@yahoo.com]

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.

[Oscar Benjamin]

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.

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

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


Oscar

[ru...@yahoo.com]

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.

[Steven D'Aprano]

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


--
Steven

[Ian Kelly]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp....@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.

[Zero Piraeus]

:

On 17 October 2012 19:17, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp....@pearwood.info> wrote:
[on Asperger's]

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

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

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

-[]z.

[Dwight Hutto]

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes it's just ridiculous.

[Zero Piraeus]

:

On 17 October 2012 19:53, Dwight Hutto <dwight...@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.

-[]z.

[ru...@yahoo.com]

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.

[Oscar Benjamin]

On 18 October 2012 00:17, Steven D'Aprano

(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.


Oscar

[Mark Lawrence]

On 18/10/2012 01:44, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
> 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.

--
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

[alex23]

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.

[Dwight Hutto]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:02 PM, alex23 <wuw...@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.

[Dwight Hutto]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:47 PM, wu wei <wuw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwight...@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.

[Dwight Hutto]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei <wuw...@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.

[alex23]

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.

[alex23]

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".

[Dwight Hutto]

Usually, etiquette dictates, that we hit "reply all".

[Chris Angelico]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei <wuw...@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.)

ChrisA

[alex23]

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?

[Dwight Hutto]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:11 AM, alex23 <wuw...@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.

[Chris Angelico]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM, alex23 <wuw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

ChrisA

[alex23]

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*.

[Dwight Hutto]

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 <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei <wuw...@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'

[Dwight Hutto]

How was I supposed to know you removed it. Usually it's an accident to
hit just 'reply'. Check around, and ask.

[rusi]

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?

[Dwight Hutto]

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 <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:06 AM, alex23 <wuw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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.

[Chris Angelico]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwight...@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

[Dwight Hutto]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM, alex23 <wuw...@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?"

[Hguant]

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?)

[Zero Piraeus]

:

On 18 October 2012 00:36, rusi <rusto...@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 ;-)

-[]z.

[1] A trait I share, and struggle to overcome.

[Steven D'Aprano]

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.

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.


--
Steven

[David Hutto]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp....@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.

> 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?

[rusi]

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?

I understood that your original post started after Etienne's outburst
against Steven.
David's outbursts are relatively harmless.
I tried to talk gently to him http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-September/631949.html
And then gave up http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-September/631950.html

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.

IOW the robustness principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
is as good for human networking as for computers.

[BTW This was enunciated 2000 years ago by a clever chap: Love your
enemies; drive them crazy]

[David Hutto]

That only works if they're not already insane.
Otherwise you're just prodding a cornered beast.
]

[Zero Piraeus]

:

On 18 October 2012 02:19, rusi <rusto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understood that your original post started after Etienne's outburst
> against Steven.

Ah, I see. It was intended as a general request for politeness, but
yes, IIRC that was the exchange that prompted it.

> IOW the robustness principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
> is as good for human networking as for computers.

Never thought of it as applying to humans ... that's rather good. Not
universally applicable, but then neither is it for computers.

-[]z.

[rusi]

On Oct 18, 11:27 am, David Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [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.

Usually but not necessarily
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angulimala#Story

[Dave Angel]

On 10/18/2012 02:19 AM, rusi wrote:
> <snip>

>
> IOW the robustness principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
> is as good for human networking as for computers.
>
>

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.

--

DaveA

[Robert Kern]

On 10/18/12 6:43 AM, David Hutto wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp....@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

[Curt]

On 2012-10-17, Dwight Hutto <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?

I told a girl friend once that my laptop had been purloined, and she
thought I was maligning her cat.

Maybe not the same thing.