Simple Question regarding running .py program

rurpy at rurpy at
Thu Nov 15 22:29:31 CET 2012

On 11/14/2012 04:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:20:13 -0800, rurpy wrote:

I'll skip the issues already addressed by Joshua Landau.

> 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?

Yes I sign in.  And I've never entered my mobile phone 
number and no I don't get badgered every time (I've not 
been asked when I logged in several times today and I 
just tried again to confirm.)  I have been asked in the
past and just ignore it -- click Save (or whatever the 
button is) with a blank text box.

As was pointed out, a large number of people already 
have Google accounts.  And creating an account at 
Google is not comparable to researching news readers, 
downloading and installing software, setting up an 
account, etc for someone who's never even heard of 
usenet before.  Subscribing to email is easier but 
it has its own problems (all those email you don't 
care about, the time delay (I've had to wait over 24 
hours for a response for some email lists), what to 
do when you're traveling, reading some groups via 
email but others by GG.  I've also had problems 
trying to post through Gmane and then there were 
Gmane's accessibly problems a few months ago, fixed 
now but for how long?

The OP had already found her way to GG and managed
to post.  So the incremental cost for her to *continue*
using GG is very low.  That's in comparision to
*changing* to a new posting method.

I'm not saying the Google is always easier than an 
alternative but for a significant number of people 
it is.  But most importantly it is *their* place to
say what is easier for them, not yours or mine.

> 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.

Well, that's the best example of FUD I've seen in this 
thread so far.  Congratulations.  ;-)

>> 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.

Please don't tell me what I believe, especially when 
you get it wrong.

> 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.

Again you repeat Chris Angelo's mistake (if it's a 
mistake).  "group's prejudice"?  You've presented 
no evidence that "the group" as a whole or in large 
part (including many people who seldom if ever post) 
share your view.  Same with "consensus".  A consensus 
of whom?  Are you saying there is a consensus among 
those who dislike GG posts that they dislike GG posts?

You say the dislike is "not a mere prejudice" and yet 
I can't help but wonder where the hard evidence is.  
I've not seen it posted though I could have easily 
missed it.

All the news/email tools I use make it a little work
to see where a post came from -- usually they'll be a 
button somewhere or a menu item to show the headers 
and one will scan those for the source.  While easy 
enough it is still (at least for me) much easier to 
simply skip a post based on the subject/poster or 
a quick peak at the contents.

So I've never had any inclination to look and have no 
idea how many crap posts come from GG.  Yet you claim
that a large percentage of this group has made the 
effort to do that.  (Or maybe there is an easier way
to check?)

However I can easily imagine how some could think 
they are checking...

 "Oh man, what a crap post!  Let's check the headers.
 Yup, just as I thought, Google Groups."

But of course, our genius doesn't keep any records
and the cases where he is wrong don't make as much 
impression on his memory.  Further, he doesn't bother 
to check the headers on the non-crap posts.  Even a 
junior-high science student could see the problems
with this methodology.

And how many people actually do even that?  Some may
find it an offensive suggestion but there is such a 
thing as group psychology and there are people who
follow leaders.  (I suspect those people are all of 
"us" at least some of the time.)  Further people tend
to be convinced even more easily when they think 
"everybody knows it".  So when a few of the more 
prolific and respected posters here start talking 
about "the consensus is...", "deprecated on this list"
and make statements like "GG is irredeemably broken"
there are people who will accept that info at the 
posters' word. 

And when someone challenges the anti-GG claim, the 
issue get polarized and choosing one side or the
other (still without much reliable evidence) becomes 
an action of support.

Finally there is a significant amount of anti-Google
sentiment in the world and it can difficult to tell
if someone's motivation is purely against obnoxious
posts or is also motivated in part by a desire to 
oppose Google.  You yourself I think have publicly
criticized Google and even advocated using an alternate 
search engine, yes?  That kind of political decision 
is something each person should decide for themself 
and should not be subject to external pressure, at
least not here.

So your claim that everyone rejecting GG posts is
doing so based solely on their own personal experience 
is not convincing to me.

Now none of that proves that GG posts *aren't* largely
crap.  But I do object to hyping up the claim.

And I still question the need to killfile GG posts 
based on:
* My experience that it is not hard to ignore or quickly
 skip over crap posts and neither are they very numerous
 so killfiling does not provide much incremental benefit.
* Killfiling is detrimental in that it loses the non-
 crap posts as well.  (The OP of this thread is one
 example and I recall another example a week or two 
 ago as well.)
* My belief that is wrong on some deep level to reject
 people based on statistics for a group they belong to,
 especially on a list that makes a big point of being

> 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.

Right.  And I've never said anything contrary.  I am 
not promoting GG and am happy to see helpful suggestions
on how to access this group by other means.

My responses in this and other threads have pretty much 
been limited to correcting bad or very biased information 
and while I'm at it, expressing my opinion that killfiling
based on a source (and one as widely used as GG) is not
a good way to address the problem as expanded on above.

More information about the Python-list mailing list