Case-sensitivity: why -- or why not? (was Re: Damnation!)

Les Schaffer godzilla at netmeg.net
Fri May 26 18:15:46 CEST 2000


two different comments from different posters:

> to complain that it's all a question of possible IPO money seems
> remarkably mean-spirited.

i didnt say __all__. but i am definitely wondering if its a factor,
concious or otherwise. and that won't change (much) even if someone
tells me GvR is the most kindest gentlest Christian on Earth.

Why?

Because i hadn't intended to make a statement about GvR personal only
to him (and aoplogize if it was taken that way).

you will note also i never used the word greedy in my post, on
purpose.

> I think you're right, frankly. Speculative character assassination
> from the point of view of ignorance and from the security of
> relative anonymity is disgusting.

first off, how is the post i made in any way anonymous? You have my
email address. I am not famous in the Python community, thats true. Is
that what is important to you?

I agree that my conjecture was speculative, and i thought that was
pretty clear from my use of the word 'absurd', twice. I dont agree
that it was character assassination. I didn't mean to single out
anyone (though i can ses now it could be taken that way). I was making
a general comment that large sums of money (more generally, the
material basis of a society) can affect the ways things happen.

You evidently think there is some critical error in logic here. But
Courageous, I am not the first person on the planet to suggest that
why we do things has numerous and sometimes unknown-to-us
causes. Sometimes we get to them by speculating first, and then
testing out the speculation second. Newton's "hypothesis non fingo" is
considered outdated in physics by the way.

the fact is, the three of you that got yourselves in an uproar over my
supposed character assassination have not dealt at all with the (at
least intended) substance of my post, which is that a large (to me)
change in Python was being put forward by its author for published
reasons which struck me as absurd on its face.  So absurd, one could
not but speculate on the deeper causes for such a situation. 

I understand this is debateable, that some of you think its a rational
change to remove case sensitivity. Others of us disagree. Some of
those disagreements and analysis will come out of left fields, so to
speak, in the sense that some of the terms of the debate will appear
mysteriously shifted from center stage.

C'est la vie...

les schaffer

-----and now for something (kinda) completely different-----

from http://www.sexuality.org/l/activism/logic.html#cumhoc

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.

  "Literacy rates have steadily declined since the advent of
  television. Clearly television viewing impedes learning."

This fallacy is a special case of the more general non causa pro
causa.

--- NI!!! ---

I never used the term "Clearly" in my original post, on purpose.

I never said that IPO money was the ONLY cause.



More information about the Python-list mailing list