Modifying Class Object
Alf P. Steinbach
alfps at start.no
Sat Feb 13 00:47:56 CET 2010
* Steven D'Aprano:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:26:24 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> Yes, I do count this as a personal attack and flaming.
>> The litmus test for that is that it says something very negative about
>> the person you're debating with.
> As negative as accusing somebody of intentionally lying?
> Or is it only a personal attack when other people dare to disagree with
> Alf P. Steinbach?
Do you mean that everybody else is allowed to get personal, but I, in return, am
not so allowed?
>> In addition, your statement about the earlier attacks on me, is untrue,
>> and your implication that it's only about attacks on me, is untrue. Both
>> of which are very misleading, by the way. I'm assuming that you're
>> intentionally lying.
> Get over yourself. You're not so important that everyone is falling over
> themselves to discredit you by intentional lying.
This implies something about my beliefs about my importance, that is, it is
clearly intended as an ad hominem attack.
I'm getting a bit tired of that.
> You do bring some technical knowledge and perspectives that is valuable to
> this community, but it comes with so much spikiness, near-paranoia and
> Freudian projection that it is extremely unpleasant dealing with you.
> Since you first came to this community, you have displayed a remarkable
> ability to take personal offence at virtually every disagreement,
That is not true.
I do take offense at pure personal attacks, though.
Personal attacks are about person, technical discussion is about technical things.
> a deeply paranoid viewpoint that whenever somebody contradicts your
> statements they are deliberately lying,
That's just stupid, sorry.
Being paranoid is not about being attacked, or about pointing out when someone's
> and a level of arrogance that is
> outstanding even for computer science. (How sure of yourself do you have
> to be to write a textbook for beginners in a language that you yourself
> are a self-professed beginner in?)
> I note with interest that this is not the only forum where your reaction
> to disagreement is to accuse others of deliberate lying.
Your argument gets a bit circular.
> It is a habit of yours,
That is untrue.
> and you've displayed it frequently
No, that is untrue.
> and repeatedly.
Yes, I have repeatedly pointed when people have been lying, citing the evidence
and logic leading to that conclusion.
I wouldn't just "accuse" someone of something like that.
It's far too serious (however, above you're happy with accusing me of being
paranoid and whatever, so I conclude that you have no such qualms).
> For example:
Yes, I've been on the net a long time, and consequently I have been involved in
flame wars. :-)
That is no excuse for your behavior.
An extremely long thread dedicated to the notion that there are no references in
Python (which is blatantly false), coupled with personal attacks on the one
person arguing that there are. I could easily think that you were having me on.
Of course most anyone else who'd hold the rational opinion would not join the
battlefield, because it clearly wasn't and isn't about convincing or educating
anyone, but I feel that follow-ups to my articles should be answered.
Cheers & hth.,
 Like one here where some guy A objects to some other guy B's use of the
term "portable assembler" about C, where at first I try to defend B's point of
view, since it is after all one employed even by the creators of C. B sensibly
opts out of the discussion while I stay on, predictable result. Another flame
war is with some functional programming fanatic, and a third with a known troll.
More information about the Python-list