Google Groups + this list
rurpy at yahoo.com
rurpy at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 25 23:09:49 CET 2013
On 12/25/2013 05:19 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 12/24/13 8:47 PM, rurpy at yahoo.com wrote:
>> On 12/23/2013 09:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> you haven't answered the other part of the post, the more important
>> Refresh my memory please.
> Ugh, stop!
Stop what? The context you quote has nothing to do
with what you write below.
> We get it: you don't think Google Groups is bad.
That's not accurate. I would never characterize GG
with such simplistic terms as "good" or "bad".
> Or you
> think it can be made to work,
My own posts demonstrate that. You don't agree? Why
would you question that I think so?
> or something.
"or something"? In other words you *don't* get it.
> That's fine. But you are
> going to have to reason a little more subtly than, "all software has bugs."
I have tried to, both in the previous posts and in posts
going back any months. Either I have failed to make myself
clear or (more likely since you (et.al.) consistently cut
out context and fail to respond directly to what I wrote)
you choose not to understand.
> As Chris has pointed out, the bugs in Google Groups affect every reader
> of the list. Bugs in other software don't, at least not to the same extent.
I understand that. But (a hypothetical) *I* have to make
a tradeoff between the features/misfeatures of GG vs TB
or any other software. You assume that the negative value
you assign to GG apply to me. Wrong. While I understand
(for example) that the FU'd quoting is annoying, I don't
see why you can't just ignore it or skip reading my entire
post if necessary. (The non-hypothetical I actually almost
never reads quoted stuff anyway -- I only do so rarely when
my memory and the main message leaving me unclear about
something -- and even then it is often easier to go back
to the OP given the spotty quality of quote trimming, as
And (as I pointed out, multiple times) you fail to evaluate
as positively as (hypothetical again) I do the benefits GG
has for me. (Evidence: Chris' erroneous insistence that
subscribing to the email list is as easy as using GG.) So
my evaluation of the overall benefit/cost for GG relative
to some other choice is still positive even though your
evaluation is otherwise. And I distrust your evaluation
anyway since I *know* (from personal experience that GG
is easier to use for me than a mailing list) that part of
your evaluation is wrong.
What you are saying is that I should use *your* evaluation
of GG (and other options) in making my tradeoffs. And you
get very angry when I won't do what you tell me to.
Secondly, the above is a side issue. Please go back and
reread the posts in question. The main point (which you and
Chris lost or did a good job misdirecting away from) is that
Chris claimed (and you found reasonable to believe) that GG
corrupts white space in posts. I have not seen any such
effect, Chris' explanations were all handwaving, and so
pending something more convincing I will offer the alternate
explanation that it is just more unjustified disparagement
of GG and that it constitutes evidence that much of this
anti-GG sentiment is driven by a "Lord of the Flies" effect
rather than rationality.
> Rurpy, you seem to be willfully ignoring the aggravation people are
"willfully ignoring"? For someone portraying himself as
a voice of reason in this discuss that's a pretty sleezy
thing to say. I'll point out I put a small but significant
amount of work into a wiki page to try to help reduce the
aggravation people are experiencing which is more than you
or Chris have done.
> And people who hate Google Groups: you seem to be
> overlooking the fact that it's difficult for the users of Google Groups
> to understand its flaws, or to see the effect it has on the list.
And in my opinion, overreacting to GG annoyances. Despite
claims to the contrary, reading GG posts *will not* make
you go blind, and they *can* be easily skipped if too
annoying. And from comments posted here, there are people
who find these incessant GG discussions (and frequent
troll baiting) far more annoying than posts from GG.
> I'll repeat my proposal (for everyone):
> 1) Don't fault newcomers for using Google Groups. Politely suggest
> alternatives, but only if you are also helping them, or if they have
> already gotten help.
> 2) Be careful how you rail against Google Groups. When you call its
> results "crap" (for example), it can sound like an insult to the poster.
> You mean to refer to Google Groups, but remember you are also
> referring to the poster's words.
> 3) Don't let's get into protracted internal debates about Google Groups.
> It is for the moment at least, an unavoidable part of this list.
> Do you disagree?
OK I give up. You never even bothered to read what you're
responding to. I specifically wrote regarding the above,
immediately following where you wrote the above:
>> That all sounds fine [...]
When you want to reply to what I wrote rather than what
you want to believe, we can restart this conversation.
(And no, I don't read your question as directed at
"everyone" since you would have, given my response,
specifically excluded me if you'd meant that.)
More information about the Python-list