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

Ethan Furman ethan at stoneleaf.us
Sat Mar 30 00:07:21 CET 2013


On 03/29/2013 02:26 PM, rurpy at yahoo.com wrote:
> On 03/28/2013 02:31 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> On 03/28/2013 12:54 PM, rurpy at yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On 03/28/2013 01:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> For someone who delights in pointing out the logical errors of
>>> others you are often remarkably sloppy in your own logic.
>>>
>>> Of course language can be both helpful and excessively strong. That
>>> is the case when language less strong would be equally or more
>>> helpful.
>>
>> It can also be the case when language less strong would be useless.
>
> I don't get your point.
> I was pointing out the fallacy in Steven's logic (which you cut).
> How is your statement relevant to that?

Ah.  I thought you were saying that in all cases helpful strong language would be even more helpful if less strong.


>>> Further, "liar" is both so non-objective and so pejoratively
>>> emotive that it is a word much more likely to be used by someone
>>> interested in trolling than in a serious discussion, so most
>>> sensible people here likely would not bite.
>>
>> Non-objective?  If today poster B says X, and tomorrow poster B says
>> s/he was unaware of X until just now, is not "liar" a reasonable
>> conclusion?
>
> Of course not.  People forget what they posted previously, change
> their mind, don't express what they intended perfectly, sometimes
> express a complex thought that the reader inaccurately perceives
> as contradictory, don't realize themselves that their thinking
> is contradictory, ...

I agree, which is why I resisted my own impulse to call him a liar; however, he has been harping on this subject for 
months now, so I would be suprised if he actually was surprised and had forgotten...


> Lying involves intent to deceive.  I haven't been following jmfauth's
> claims since they are not of interest to me, but going back and quickly
> looking at the posts that triggered the "liar" and "idiot" posts, I
> did not see anything that made me think that jmfauth was not sincere
> in his beliefs.  Being wrong and being sincere are not exclusive.
> Nor did Steven even try to justify the "liar" claim.  As to Mark
> Lawrence, that seemed like a pure "I don't like you" insult whose
> proper place is /dev/null.

After months of jmf's antagonist posts, I don't blame them.

>>>> I hope that we all agree that we want a nice, friendly,
>>>> productive community where everyone is welcome.
>>>
>>> I hope so too but it is likely that some people want a place to
>>> develop and assert some sense of influence, engage in verbal duels,
>>> instigate arguments, etc.  That can be true of regulars here as
>>> well as drive-by posters.
>>>
>>>> But some people simply cannot or will not behave in ways that are
>>>> compatible with those community values. There are some people
>>>> whom we *do not want here*
>>>
>>> In other words, everyone is NOT welcome.
>>
>> Correct.  Do you not agree?
>
> Don't ask me, ask Steven.  He was the one who wrote two sentences
> earlier, "...we want a...community where everyone is welcome."

Ah, right -- missed that!

--
~Ethan~



More information about the Python-list mailing list