flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]

Ethan Furman ethan at stoneleaf.us
Thu Mar 28 04:18:36 CET 2013


On 03/27/2013 06:47 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:51:07 +0000, Mark Lawrence defending an
> unproductive post flaming a troll:

I wouldn't call it unproductive -- a half-dozen amusing posts followed because of Mark's initial post, and they were a 
great relief from the tedium and (dare I say it?) idiocy of jmf's posts.


>> He's not going to change so neither am I.
>
> "He's a troll disrupting the newsgroup, therefore I'm going to be a troll
> disrupting the newsgroup too, so nyah!!!"

So long as Mark doesn't start cussing and swearing I'm not going to get worked up about it.  I find jmf's posts for more 
aggravating.


>> I also suggest you go and moan at Steven D'Aprano who called the idiot a
>> liar.  Although thinking about it, I prefer Steven's comment to my own
>> as being more accurate.
>
> Yes I did, I suggest you reflect on the difference in content between
> your post and mine, and why yours can be described as abusive flaming and
> mine shouldn't be.

Mark's post was not, in my not-so-humble opinion, abusive.  jmf's (again IMNSHO) was.

Your post (Steven's) was possibly more accurate, but Mark's was more amusing, and generated more amusing responses.

Clearly, jmf is not going to change his thread-hijacking unicode-whining behavior, whether faced with the cold rational 
responses or the hotter fed-up responses.

So I guess what I'm saying is: Don't Feed The Trolls (Anyone!)  ;)

Of course, somebody still has to reply so a newcomer doesn't get taken in by him.

Has anybody else thought that his last few responses are starting to sound bot'ish?

--
~Ethan~



More information about the Python-list mailing list