Simple Question regarding running .py program
joshua.landau.ws at gmail.com
Thu Nov 15 01:02:28 CET 2012
Steven, whilst I hold you in high regard, this post seems spurned by bias.
I would urge you to reconsider your *argument*, although your *position*
On 14 November 2012 23:07, Steven D'Aprano <
steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> 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
> 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]
With rounding, all people *do* have two legs. That's not fair. In fact, the
idea that most users of this list ban Google Groups is probably false.
Additionally, being provocative isn't actually weakness of his argument,
although it is a distraction. He asked if you had a "problem" with it on
the basis that if it was a fair claim you would not, in order to show that
it was not a fair claim. That would *imply* his correctness.
How about this(?):
"People have brown hair."
> 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?
That's not fair, either, on the basis that almost everyone has a Google
account. Additionally, who signs in manually any more [*wink*]?
> 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"?
They might not remember their Email account either. This seems to be a
really contrived point.
> 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*
All of this is really beside the point, anyway. He claimed the he used it
because *he* found it easier. And there was claim that there were good
reasons to use Google Groups. If you claim that his point is invalid
because it only talks about *his* idealised user, you've only invalidated
your own point.
> 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.
Consensus? Hrm...A synonym of "consensus" is "unanimity". This argument's
existence basically disproves that.
> 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
> 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
I think this is a valid thing to say. I agree largely because it's the
user's choice to read and reply to this list. Calling someone helpful in a
community "intolerant" because you think they could be nicer would be a bit
> Should we tolerate spam because any spam filter might
> occasionally throw away a legitimate mail?
This is an optional list. Some who want to be more helpful will, others
So is the spam filter. If you filter, you live with the consequences. If
you oft get *very* important mail, then the answer to your question is
likely "Yes" if you take "tolerate" to mean "not filter".
> 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.
This is not a thoughtful thing to say. He said nothing of the sort.
> 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.
Surely then you must respect his right to use and endorse Google Groups,
even if you do not agree with his reasons.
You have shown as much respect to his opinions and choices as he has to
yours. What really matters is that you respect the person, regardless.
> > 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.
Have you misread his sentence(s), or have I?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-list