Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > * Steve Holden: >> >> So now the whole thing boils down to "Alf against the world"? The >> reminds me of the story about the woman who went to see her son qualify >> from his basic army training. When asked what she thought of the parade >> she said it was very nice, but that "everyone but our Alf was out of >> step". > > Considering your frequent ad hominem attacks (and this is yet one more), > you seem to think that social coercion works well for establishing > engineering solutions or scientific truth. > > That's a misconception. > So now I understand neither engineering nor science? I find that assertion offensive, though unsurprising.
> Social matters and matters of engineering or science are different things. > I am hardly ignorant of that, as you should know from my many past writings on both aspects of Python usage. You are attempting to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. > >> I am unsure at this stage what it would take to convince you that you >> are not only wrong about several important aspects of Python but also >> wrong-headed. > > You might start by starting a thread about one such thing; I'll correct > you if you're wrong about something I know, or if you demonstrate that > I'm wrong about something, then I'll be happy to learn something, as > always. > > It would be a nice change from your extreme focus on my person, if you > could manage to discuss something technical. > See below. > >> Whenever anyone points out any aspect of your behavior >> which is unacceptable or ignorant you trot out this accusation that >> people are making "ad hominem attacks" as though commenting on aspects >> of your personality is an attempt to undermine your arguments. > > That's an ad hominem attack, albeit a pretty silly one. > [facepalm] > Your behavior, with ad hominem, coercion, insinuations, > misrepresentations and so forth the basic ingredients, is completely > unacceptable to me, by the way. > > It's like a bully in the schoolyard. > I am attempting to persuade, not to coerce. > >> It isn't. The two are orthogonal. Your arguments are wrong *and* you are >> behaving like a pratt. A change in either one of these aspects would >> improve matters, but each seems as unlikely as the other. >> >>> It also reflects rather badly on you. >> >> Sigh. We're all out of step again, obviously. > > If you had any argument that held regarding the technical, then I think > you (and I mean the singular you) would have tried it by now. > > But instead, you engage in this bullying behavior. > My (technical) views on your insistence that Python's semantics require the use of pointers to explain them is ongoing elsewhere, and remains open for you to refute. In this particular part of the thread I am attempting, unsuccessfully, to convince you that a change in *your* behavior would lead to less hostility directed towards the way you present your ideas. You apparently feel it is quite acceptable to tell people to "learn to read", and calling their assertions "bullshit", but when we try to point out aspects of your behavior that are either undesirable or unacceptable we are indulging in "ad hominem attacks". In your terms, your accusing me of bullying behavior is an ad hominem attack on me, so I won't bother to respond further. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
