What does Python fix?

[Mike C. Fletcher]

It is certainly true that the flouting of the norm is not a sure mark of 
genius, and there are examples of great minds whose greatness is their 
ability to process within the field (as Alex pointed out, Kant was 
apparently an in-the-box thinker (I didn't get that from what little 
I've read of him, but I've only read 20 or 30 pages and found it far too 
obscured to be worth finishing)).

Coming from a background in design, I (possibly too narrowly) associate 
greatness with the ability to transcend the rules, to establish new 
rules.  For me, genius ("the greatest minds") is the likes of Gaudi, 
Piccasso, Einstein or Ghandi, people who have introduced new ideas and 
approaches from a vision of power and depth.  I wouldn't want to move to 
a point where we miss those voices.  The definition of the filter is 
incestuously related to the results of filtering ;) .

You raise the point of artistry (the ability to communicate precisely as 
a social norm).  I will certainly grant that it is a great benefit if 
one can put forward the ideas of the outsider in a format readily 
accessible by the insiders.  I just want to be sure that we don't set it 
as a requirement before we allow someone to speak.[*]

My comments regarding the need to avoid ossification were in reference 
to the original comment by Courageous (long since dropped by the various 
quote trimmings ;) 
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e33e4u4vtebc90irkkcrspot3up71vtn5j%404ax.com 
) which, though possibly tounge in cheek, was rather strong-sounding for 
something that (to me) is minor.  It's for that reason (and the idea 
that the outsider should be ignored) that I felt it necessary to jump 
in.  Had this merely been about top-posting, I would have simply 
continued about my top-posting ways and ignored the whole issue :o) .

It's probably true that Arona's post ( 
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mailman.1011280826.5351.python-list%40python.org) 
was guilty of over-quoting (2 lines content, 27 lines quote), but the 
reaction was to "yell" about, not the over-quoting, but the (to me) 
rather fussy and unrelated issue of top-posting.

I suppose we've entirely exhausted any real content in this thread, so 
I'll cede y'all the right to ignore me when I flout the rules and invade 
the comfort space of all right-thinking peoples ;) :) .

Have fun, stay loose, remain cool, Nanoo-nanoo and enjoy yourself,
Mike

[*] I've been thinking about this issue a lot (too much?) lately in 
connection with the issue of high-function autism.  It seems to me that 
some of the most valuable and precious minds are those sitting just the 
other side of the "normalcy" threshold which allows easy communication 
and interaction.  Huge capacity for systematisation and organisation, 
the ability to structure and order large numbers of seemingly disparate 
ideas, and the capacity to recognise faint and almost inperceptable 
patterns are powerful tools, if they can be harnessed.



François Pinard wrote:

> [Mike C. Fletcher]
>>The greatest minds of all time have almost invariably failed to follow
>>the cultural norms of their time.
>>
> 
> Maybe.  But escaping norms is surely no guarantee of a great mind! :-)
> Proper quoting is an art, which gets more and more diluted, as the Internet
> gets more democratic.  One should quote no more than necessary, and just
> in time to re-establish the context for the reader.  Many of us follow
> more than one conversation at a time, and do not like paging down into a
> massive quote, just to get a clue about where fits a reply.
...

> Even if I'm not an English speaker, I appreciate your prose as well written,
> nicely punctuated, with no gross orthographical nor typographical mistake.
> This may be part of the forms and conventions, but still, it produces an
> aesthetical pleasure to your readers.  Common guidelines are part of the
> comfort of a society, they are important.
...