Python vs. Perl, which is better to learn?

[James J. Besemer]

Laura Creighton wrote:

> Knock it off, Besemer.

Hey, everybody!  Laura's back!  YEAAA!!   ;o)

> The English language gets levelled enough
> wihtout you trying to rub the edges off 'interesting' and turn it
> into Newspeak.  Some of us need that word when we want to express
> our interest in a subject.  Frequently, we want to use it in
> precisely the same context as you care to abuse it -- wow, somebody
> disagreed with me and made me think new and interesting thoughts,
> care to expand on this point some more? so it is quite important
> to not let you get away with such things.

The point I was trying to make with my RHETORICAL QUESTION is that it's
silly and pointless to try to quantify things like the word "more".  So
if I understand your post correctly -- you are arguing MY side of the
issue while at the same time protesting at length and in the shrillest
possible fashion, railing against the opposite of what I said.

This is an obscure form of "Heated Agreement (tm)."  ;o)

> But more importantly, nobody is interested in playing any status
> games with you.

> You can stop agreeing with the Martellibot as well.  We have already
> recognized his competance, which is why he is a bot.  Stop trying to
> destablise our egalitarian society with your nasty status plays.  You
> get negative respect points here for simply saying 'I agree' to the
> Martellibot -- we just wasted our time reading drivel because you
> wanted to rub shoulders with the competant in a status-enhancing
> fashion.

What the BLOODY HELL are you TALKING about?

First off, let me assure you and everybody else that "to destablise"
[sic.] your "egalitarian society" here is the furthest thing from my
mind.  Somehow YOU, Senora Creighton, got it in your wee brain that I'm
the great Satan, Lord of Darkness, out to rape and pillage comp.lang.py
and burn it to the ground.  And you've furthermore taken it upon yourself
to drive this evil from the land.  I gotta say, that you so exaggerate
the threat and that you feel such a great responsibility to deal with it
personally is a textbook manifestation of paranoid behavior.

Second, your accusations don't make any sense at all.  Fact of the
matter, there are only two instances in the last couple weeks where my
posts were short replies of the form "I agree".  Most recently was with a
Mr. Tunrbull, in which, in the context of several courteous exchanges, I
was politely conceding his final counterpoint.  Prior to that I
complemented Patrick W for making a point, as it was consistent with an
argument I was advancing in the course of an on-going thread.  None of
this counts as a nasty status play.  For better or worse, most of my
posts have been closer to a page or more in length, on topic, at least
attempting to make a sincere contribution.  I help the newbies
occasionally when I know the answer and can get a reply in before
somebody else.  For the life of me I cannot locate a member named
"Martellibot" or recall a post where I sucked-up to him or anybody else.

I'll tell you what -- I'll stay off the list for a week if you can dredge
up a specific example to support your accusations that I was:

    (a) merely trying to "rub shoulders with the competant" [sic.];

    (b) knowingly communicating with anybody named "Martellibot";

    (c) sucking up to anybody.

> Dear Ray Tux and other Newbies who are reading this -- becoming a
> great programmer takes more than a month, but you can cop the
> arrogant programmer attitude, as practiced by James Besemer and
> learn THAT in a month, for certain.  Don't do it.  If you look back
> you will see how Besemer was perfectly willing to take correction
> from Steve Holden and Cliff Wells, individuals that he has marked
> as 'high-status' so that he can claim the a rank in the barnyard
> pecking order as 'friend of the mighty'.

I really cannot fathom your continued, unprovoked hostility especially in
this Egalitarian Utopia, where everyone is supposed to be welcome, and
where you'd think early mistakes might eventually be forgiven.

Ironically, the only advice I ever got or took from Cliff was to not take
your rants too seriously.  ;o)   And that led to something about
"scratching the monkey," which immediately prompted somebody else to
suggest we all should turn down any offers you might make to "mount" a
guy.  But as a newcomer, this all was way over my head.

I'm sure the newbies can see for themselves that my actual behavior is
significantly at odds with your harsh and insulting characterization.

> But since I made it quite
> explicit that he was not my friend, he wouldn't take it from me.

BULLSHIT.

I publicly and privately credited you for a key piece of advice early
on.  This was when your rants were only half mindless and still contained
a few particles of constructive criticism.  You even publicly
acknowledged this, concluding you had to "think about this some more.".
So did you think about it and somehow forget or are you simply perverting
the truth because it better suits your agenda?

> (Admittedly, I stacked things by using extremely angry language,
> but I wanted to see how shallow his claim to like straight blunt
> talk was).

I don't mind blunt talk.  As I said, I actually prefer it.  I'm a little
puzzled that you persist in this experiment but WTF?  It's a free
country.

Unfortunately, I foolishly neglected to further distinguish between:

     (a) Blunt but constructive and otherwise well intentioned
     criticisms, such as "that approach won't work," "that PEP
     is ridiculous," "'WRONG!'", "BZZZZT!", even "BULLSHIT"
     or your earliest note to me -- all of which is OK.

     (b) Personal attacks purely out of personal animosity.

     (c) Illogical hysterical rants that only serve to publicly
     embarrass the speaker, if only she was smart enough
     to realize it.

> Follow this path and you can spend your life wondering
> when your essential lack of authenticity will cause you to be found
out.
> And looking for the next argument, as well.

Come on -- you don't really want to argue or carry on any kind of a
serious dialog.

After your first several rounds of unprovoked insults, I tried to engage
you in a serious dialog in a lengthy private note and a shorter public
one.  Instead of responding in kind you choose to ignore my conciliatory
gestures and continue with your irrational, outrageous, public, personal
attacks.

Because of some careless missteps early on, I got under your skin and now
it appears you're on a crusade to continue heaping enough insults and
abuse on me.  I imagine, this is an attempt to force me to leave the
list.  Who knows?  I suppose it could work.  If you really want to become
THAT kind of person.

Y'r ob't s'v't,

--jb

--
James J. Besemer  503-280-0838 voice
http://cascade-sys.com  503-280-0375 fax
mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com