What has PEP 285 done to us?

[Cliff Wells]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 09:51:01 -0400
Arthur Siegel wrote:

> Where my own sensibilities happen to explode is when I perceive a good
> portion of the community defending Guido's
> position when it is based on thin evidence, is non-technical, and represents
> no more than one guy's take based on the amount of attention he happens to
> have been able to give the matter, as they do when it is based on an
> articulated position on technical matters - where I would agree the burden
> of proof most definitely shifts.

And this is a valid position (one that I tend to take).  However some of your
earlier remarks were not of this nature:

[from your earlier post]
> The fact as to who's football we happening to be playing
> with now being a little shoved in our face.  Guido seemed
> willing to accept the sense of the community, along as the
> community told him what he wanted to hear. When
> it didn't, he simply retroactively rephrased his question.

This was a direct attack on Guido's integrity, which was uncalled for.  You
*assumed* much about what he meant (perhaps he didn't make himself clear, but
that's hardly grounds for labeling him a dictator) and when he clarified his
position he became a liar.

While it is clear that much misunderstanding went on, it seems you went too far
in your interpretation of what Guido meant (as did I, but I prefer to confront
people personally and give them a chance to explain rather than hang them in
public over a misunderstanding).  Apparently there will be no winning for Guido
on this one:  you acknowledge (as does he) that he doesn't always make himself
clear, but when he does try to clarify he gets accused of "retroactively
rephrasing" which I take as a euphemism for "lying" in this context (but I'll
be willing to reconsider in case you want to "retroactively rephrase" that
statement ;)

Regards,

-- 
Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 x308  (800) 735-0555 x308