On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Aahz <aahz@pythoncraft.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009, Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote:
> I thought was very clear that I was talking about my interpretation
> of what was Pythonic, and clear that I was in no way talking about
> trying to claim authority. I feel a bit like I've been targetted by
> the thought police, truth be told, although that overstates matters. I
> didn't think I was in any way saying "My way is absolutely more
> Pythonic, you should all think like me", but much more along the lines
> of, "Hey, I think my solution captures something elegant and Pythonic,
> surely that's worth talking about even if there are some practical
> considerations involved".  I just thought I'd be clear in saying
> "seems to me to be more Pythonic" rather than "is more Pythonic".

That may have been your intent, but it sure isn't what I read in your
original post.  I suggest you re-read it looking for what might get
interpreted as obstreperous banging on the table:


If you still don't see it, I'll discuss it with you (briefly!) off-list;
that kind of tone discussion is really off-topic for this list.

Agreed. Anyone else who wants to chime in, feel free to email me off-list. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, I'll of course be extra-careful in future to be crystal clear about my meaning.

As far as I can tell, my original email is littered with terms like 'seems to me', 'in my opinion', 'personally' etc which I would think would convey to anyone that I'm talking about a personal opinion and not trying to discredit any one or any thing. Not that it's about counting, but I count no fewer than seven occasions where I point out that I am advancing a personal opinion rather than making a universal statement. I'm not sure what else I should have done.