mention of books & extensions welcome, or...? (was Re: Scripting *of* Python)

[holger krekel]

Alex Martelli wrote:
> holger krekel wrote:
>    ...
> > And I fully agree that such public discussions allow people to
> > participate and that is a good thing.  It's why we are here.
> 
> Oh good -- we do agree on these fundamentals, then.

sure.

> > My main point was that you didn't just innocently ask
> > "to try to gather a consensus" but called upon the
> > powers-that-be to approve your behaviour.  Let's put it
> 
> There ARE no "powers that be" around here -- 

Let's just agree to disagree on this one.  

> ...
> You did not say I should
> have phrased my question differently: you said I would
> have preferred it if I had posted that question privately
> to the original poster, which OBVIOUSLY would not have
> allowed any of the public discussion which you're now
> claiming are a good thing.

Please understand that i just said 

    Anyway, I'd have prefered if you reacted to Nick instead
    of pushing the case to all of "comp.lang.python" for judgement.

in my initial post.  Does this imply "private reply" to you? 

> > this way:  from all the well-known posters on c.l.py
> > i haven't seen anyone who would respond to a not-as-known
> > person by calling upon a group consensus in such a rhetorical
> > way.  That's a good thing in my book because otherwise it
> > would be unpleasant for not-so-wellknown people to present
> > criticism.
> 
> Hmmm, can you name a few "well-known posters" whose
> "rhetorical ways" IN GENERAL are at all close to mine?

dare anyone! of course, not :^)

A lot of people (including me) appreciate your postings 
and your rhetorics.  But i think all those powerful 
c.l.py "Bots" should be programmed to be a bit more 
careful with mere humans, sometimes.  

regards,

    holger