On Sep 28, 12:34 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > TheFlyingDutchman wrote: > > >> Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to > >> answers for people that do seek enlightment... > > > I don't think it would be correct to characterize my posts as not > > seeking enlightenment. I do also happen to voice my opinion which > > seems appropriate since this can be characterized as a discussion > > group. It theoretically is possible for a discussion group to tolerate > > opinions that diverge from the majority. > > I would characterize > > """ > I like how someone here characterized decorators - those silly @ > things. They remind me of Perl. Not adding keywords for abstract and > static is like Perl not adding a keyword for class. > """ > > not as seeking enlightenment, but as pure trolling. Disqualifying features > without actually understanding them as "silly" certainly doesn't lie on one > of the many path's to enlightenment known man - which to my knowledge > usually require more humble approaches....
Some posts seek enlightenment, some voice opinions. Opinions aren't always voiced humbly. I don't think you will have to look far for examples of people other than myself not expressing opinions humbly. > > > One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago > > in the Perl group is that there is no separate group > > comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting > > hit with RTFM! and the like. > > And I wish people that have no clue about the deeper workings of Python > wouldn't insist on commenting on these in inappropriate ways as above, but > instead try and _understand_ them before debunking them or suggesting > changes. > I will grant you that "silly" is too strong a word to use in a group of ardent users but I think it should be completely valid to gripe about the syntax at least once. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list