mention of books & extensions welcome, or...? (was Re: Scripting *of* Python)
aleax at aleax.it
Sat Feb 1 11:23:51 CET 2003
holger krekel wrote:
> And I fully agree that such public discussions allow people to
> participate and that is a good thing. It's why we are here.
Oh good -- we do agree on these fundamentals, then.
> My main point was that you didn't just innocently ask
> "to try to gather a consensus" but called upon the
> powers-that-be to approve your behaviour. Let's put it
There ARE no "powers that be" around here -- there are
posters who are more or less prolific, well-known or
well-respected than others, sure (how could it be
otherwise?!) -- but I did no more than ask for the
consensus of _every_ poster who cared enough to express
their opinion. I've been away for this group for quite
a while, so, from my point of view, it _was_ possible
(though it WOULD have been surprising) that the group's
consensus had shifted drastically during my absence.
Given that you AGREE that public discussion is a good
thing, then obviously this subject required one. I am
not sure what you're accusing me of being "guilty" as
opposed to "innocent" of, except "calling upon powers
that be" that do not exist. You did not say I should
have phrased my question differently: you said I would
have preferred it if I had posted that question privately
to the original poster, which OBVIOUSLY would not have
allowed any of the public discussion which you're now
claiming are a good thing.
So, I don't really understand what you're driving at,
not even enough to propose an "agree to disagree". You
seem to disapprove my post stronly enough to warrant a
long public discussion of it, but I still don't see what
you're hoping to achieve by this discussion.
> this way: from all the well-known posters on c.l.py
> i haven't seen anyone who would respond to a not-as-known
> person by calling upon a group consensus in such a rhetorical
> way. That's a good thing in my book because otherwise it
> would be unpleasant for not-so-wellknown people to present
Hmmm, can you name a few "well-known posters" whose
"rhetorical ways" IN GENERAL are at all close to mine?
If I imagine how various such posters might respond to
a "not-as-known person" posting some criticism they deeply
and intensely disagree about, I could see e.g the effbot
posting a short, dry, scathing reply -- the timbot posting
a somewhat-gently mocking one trying to show how silly
the nakp is being complete with fractionary winks -- etc.
I don't think being targeted by such replies would be any
more pleasant for the nakp than having a discussion on
group consensus start -- indeed, as there are (or were,
since you _do_ seem to be targeting ME personally) no
_personal_ issues at all involved in such a discussion,
it seems to give the nakp every chance to either clarify
their position (as happened here) or duck out if he or
she so chooses.
Are you implying that a "well-known poster" would in
general refrain from publically replying to posts from
nakp's criticizing them, using whatever the wkp's own
favorite "rhetorical way" IS?! If so, then you must
have been reading a very different comp.lang.python
than the one _I_ was reading. If you mean "should"
rather than "would" (and are misexpressing that a bit
by saying "I haven't seen" rather than "I'd rather
not see"), then HERE is something we CAN definitely
agree to disagree on. Public criticism, IMHO, is BEST
handled more often than not by public reply, and it's
(again IMHO) absurd and counterproductive to ask wkp's
(or anybody else) not to use their own chosen "rhetorical
ways" in such replies and followups.
More information about the Python-list