Simple Question regarding running .py program

Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info
Thu Nov 15 00:07:53 CET 2012


On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:20:13 -0800, rurpy wrote:

> On 11/14/2012 06:35 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
>> I stand by what I said. Members, plural, of this list. I didn't say
>> "all members of", ergo the word "some" is superfluous, yet not needful,
>> as Princess Ida put it.
> 
> Then you would have no problem I suppose with "Australians are racists"
> because some Australians are racist and I didn't say "all"?

Speaking as an Australian, I wouldn't have a problem with that, because 
Australians *are* racist. To the degree that we can talk about a 
"national character", the national character of Australia is racist, even 
if many Aussies aren't, and many more try not to be.

In any case, your example is provocative. Here's a less provocative 
version:

[paraphrase]
Then you would have no problem I suppose with "People have two legs"
because some people have two legs and I didn't say "all"?
[end paraphrase]



> As a user of GG, Usenet and email lists I claim you are wrong.  GG does
> NOT require "quite a bit of extra work".  If it did, I wouldn't use it. 
> For occasional posters, GG is EASIER.  (It would be even easier if
> Google would fix their execrable quoting behaviour but as I showed, it
> is easy to work around that.) I think you are ignoring setup time and a
> number of other secondary factors, things that are very significant to
> occasional posters, in your evaluation of "easy".

I don't understand why you suggest counting setup time for the 
alternatives to Google Groups, but *don't* consider setup time for Google 
Groups. You had to create a Google Account didn't you? You've either put 
in your mobile phone number -- and screw those who don't have one -- or 
you get badgered every time you sign in. You do sign in don't you?

For *really* occasional posters, they might not even remember their 
Google account details from one post to the next. So they have to either 
create a new account, or go through the process of recreating it. Why do 
you ignore these factors in *your* evaluation of "easy"?

We all do it -- when we talk about "easy" or "difficult", we have an 
idealised generalised user in mind. Your idealised user is different from 
Chris' idealised user. You are both generalising. And that's *my* 
generalisation.

Even if you are right that Google Groups is easier for some users, in my 
opinion it is easy in the same way as the Dark Side of the Force. 
Quicker, faster, more seductive, but ultimately destructive.


> As for "best", that is clearly a matter of opinion. The very fact that
> someone would killfile an entire class of poster based on a some others'
> posts reeks of intolerance and group-think.

Intolerance? Yes. But group-think? You believe that people are merely 
copying the group's prejudice against Google Groups. I don't think they 
are. I think that the dislike against GG is group consensus based on the 
evidence of our own eyes, not a mere prejudice. The use of Google Groups 
is, as far as I can tell, the single most effective predictor of badly 
written, badly thought out, badly formatted posts, and a common source of 
spam.

As for intolerance, you say that like it is that a bad thing. Why should 
people have to tolerate bad behaviour? Google Groups *encourages* bad 
behaviour. Should we tolerate spam because any spam filter might 
occasionally throw away a legitimate mail? Should we tolerate acid 
attacks on women because occasionally there might be some woman who 
actually deserves such a horrible fate? I don't think so. For many 
things, intolerance is a *good* thing, and many people here believe that 
intolerance for Google Groups is one of those cases.

You of course are free to make whatever arrangements to filter spam and 
use Google Groups as you like, but you equally must respect other 
people's right to control their own inbox by filtering away GG posters.

[...]
> As an aside, I've noticed that some those most vocal against GG have
> also been very vocal about this group being inclusive.

I call bullshit. If you are going to accuse people of being "very vocal" 
against minorities, you damn well better have some evidence to back up 
your claim.

And if you don't, I would expect a public apology for that slur.



-- 
Steven


More information about the Python-list mailing list