Deposing Dictators

[Stephen Horne]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 02:33:37 GMT, "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at home.com>
wrote:

>
>"Stephen Horne" <steve at lurking.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1fcrmt0inrolh6qjpskm7lfm7nh2j0p195 at 4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2001 18:58:13 GMT, "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at home.com>
>> wrote:
>> >... what is your purpose in continuing to falsely label him
>'dictator' as in
>> >'denier of freedom'?  Enough I think.
>>
>> I did not label him dictator ... I just explicitly
>> pointed out that he cannot be a dictator in the sense of a denier of
>> freedom - that was the whole point of the 'weak dictatorship'
>> statement - so I'd appreciate it if you stop trying to twist my
>words.
>
>OK, replace 'dictator with 'would-be dictator' and I don't think I
>twisted much at all.  'Dictator' has two meanings: one who speaks, or
>one who also enforces his words (and thereby denies freedom).  If you
>did not mean 'weak speakership', which I very much doubt, then it
>seems you must mean 'weak enforcement'.  The clear inplication *to me*
>of both your original 'weak dictatorship' statement and your
>restatement above is that there is a would-be or intended dictatorship
>that is failing.  Otrherwise the statements seem pointless.  Given
>that the Python license is about the freeest there is, I think that
>implication false.

As we all know, the subject of this thread is 'Deposing Dictators', a
subject which is based on the common term 'BDFL' which has been used
for a very long time in an affectionate way (though the thread subject
twists that, of course). And the original purpose of this thread was
to try to cause a Python fork.

Read back through my past posts and you'll find that I specifically
spoke out against that, comparing it with microsofts actions in
creating a variant of Java.

I also specifically said that the 'benevolent' was, for me, not in
question.

However, there have been statements in this thread such as...

"""
Alternatively, the people that have been baffled and amazed by recent
developments in Python could actually turn out to be all heat and
light,
without any substance.
"""

...and...

"""
But for goodness' sake, don't waste your
time whining about "democracy".  Especially when "democracy" means
"whiners have veto power over anything.
"""

My point in my message was simply to state that yes, I am doing
something, and no, I have no intention of standing around whining. The
whiners have already achieved their veto power and PEP238 is going to
go through and make a major incompatible change to the language.

And, to quote myself from the very message you are whining about...

"""
And I'll admit that the anti-PEP faction is just as bad - the claims
about 'MDFL' and such show that.
"""


My only accusation directed at Guido is that he has changed from his
original opinion (however weak that position was), that clearly a
reason for that change due to the long term whining about the way
division currently works, and that through a simple fact of human
psychology achieving another reversal of that opinion is bound to be
difficult, and through this change of opinion he is taking actions
which will make life difficult for many irrespective of his attempts
to soften the blows.

In other words, Guido is human and I believe he is making a mistake.


Do you care to explain why, as soon as I declare an intention to drop
out of the argument and stop defending my viewpoints, you take that as
an opportunity to twist my words and try to make it look like I
attacked Guido personally?

Do you care to explain why I personally should be banned from using
the term 'dictator' which is used so widely by everyone else?

Personally, I wouldn't bother. After all, you're not the only one to
deliberately twist my words.

I am sick of having people take my view that division in the domain of
integers is inherently different to division in the domain of reals,
and twisting it into a claim that the rational '2/3' or whatever is
equal to integer zero when the blatantly obvious legitimate comparison
in the domain of integers would be '2 ÷ 3 = 0 remainder 2' (as opposed
to '2 ÷ 3 = 2/3' in the domain of rationals).

I am sick of people twisting my argument that mathematics does not
need explicitly different operators for division in different numeric
domains into some kind of claim that the new Python will not support
integer division at all.

I am sick of being told I am using private definitions of terms when I
am using the exact definitions that you'd find in a typical maths
textbook as long as it didn't deal with a particular specialist topic
such as field theory.

I am sick of - well, far too many things to list.

As I said, there is no argument that can counter being ignored - and
there is equally no argument that can counter having your words
deliberately twisted and their meaning ignored.

As you (among others) have managed to annoy me enough to break my
promise to stop posting on this issue, clearly the only solution is
for me to unsubscribe from this list. I hope that makes you happy.