Modifying Class Object

[Mark Lawrence]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steven D'Aprano:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:26:24 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I do count this as a personal attack and flaming.
>>>
>>> The litmus test for that is that it says something very negative about
>>> the person you're debating with.
>>
>> As negative as accusing somebody of intentionally lying?
>>
>> Or is it only a personal attack when other people dare to disagree 
>> with Alf P. Steinbach?
> 
> Do you mean that everybody else is allowed to get personal, but I, in 
> return, am not so allowed?
> 
> 
>>> In addition, your statement about the earlier attacks on me, is untrue,
>>> and your implication that it's only about attacks on me, is untrue. Both
>>> of which are very misleading, by the way. I'm assuming that you're
>>> intentionally lying.
>>
>> Get over yourself. You're not so important that everyone is falling 
>> over themselves to discredit you by intentional lying.
> 
> This implies something about my beliefs about my importance, that is, it 
> is clearly intended as an ad hominem attack.
> 
> I'm getting a bit tired of that.
> 
> 
> 
>> You do bring some technical knowledge and perspectives that is 
>> valuable to
>> this community, but it comes with so much spikiness, near-paranoia and
>> Freudian projection that it is extremely unpleasant dealing with you.
>>
>> Since you first came to this community, you have displayed a 
>> remarkable ability to take personal offence at virtually every 
>> disagreement,
> 
> That is not true.
> 
> I do take offense at pure personal attacks, though.
> 
> Personal attacks are about person, technical discussion is about 
> technical things.
> 
> 
> 
>> a deeply paranoid viewpoint that whenever somebody contradicts your 
>> statements they are deliberately lying,
> 
> That's just stupid, sorry.
> 
> Being paranoid is not about being attacked, or about pointing out when 
> someone's lying.
> 
> Hello.
> 
> 
>> and a level of arrogance that is outstanding even for computer 
>> science. (How sure of yourself do you have to be to write a textbook 
>> for beginners in a language that you yourself are a self-professed 
>> beginner in?)
>>
>> I note with interest that this is not the only forum where your 
>> reaction to disagreement is to accuse others of deliberate lying.
> 
> Your argument gets a bit circular.
> 
> 
> 
>> It is a habit of yours,
> 
> That is untrue.
> 
> 
>> and you've displayed it frequently
> 
> No, that is untrue.
> 
> 
>> and repeatedly.
> 
> Yes, I have repeatedly pointed when people have been lying, citing the 
> evidence and logic leading to that conclusion.
> 
> I wouldn't just "accuse" someone of something like that.
> 
> It's far too serious (however, above you're happy with accusing me of 
> being paranoid and whatever, so I conclude that you have no such qualms).
> 
> 
>> For example:
>>
>> http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/General/comp.programming/2006-08/msg00139.html 
>>
>>
>> http://www.embeddedrelated.com/usenet/embedded/show/43780-20.php
>>
>> http://groups.google.am/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_thread/thread/555331f8dd594837 
>>
> 
> Yes, I've been on the net a long time, and consequently I have been 
> involved in flame wars. :-)[1]
> 
> That is no excuse for your behavior.
> 
> An extremely long thread dedicated to the notion that there are no 
> references in Python (which is blatantly false), coupled with personal 
> attacks on the one person arguing that there are. I could easily think 
> that you were having me on. Of course most anyone else who'd hold the 
> rational opinion would not join the battlefield, because it clearly 
> wasn't and isn't about convincing or educating anyone, but I feel that 
> follow-ups to my articles should be answered.
> 
> 
> Cheers & hth.,
> 
> - Alf
> 
> 
> Notes:
> [1]  Like one here where some guy A objects to some other guy B's use of 
> the term "portable assembler" about C, where at first I try to defend 
> B's point of view, since it is after all one employed even by the 
> creators of C. B sensibly opts out of the discussion while I stay on, 
> predictable result. Another flame war is with some functional 
> programming fanatic, and a third with a known troll.

I'm intrigued by your comments over the last couple of weeks, as you 
obviously know so much more about Python than people who have been 
working on it and/or using it for the 20 odd years of the existence of 
the language.  Is it safe to assume that shortly you will be telling the 
scientific community that Einstein was a complete bozo and that his 
theory of relativity is crap, or that Stephen (Bob?) Hawking knows 
nothing about the origins of the universe?

To put it another way, please stand up Alf, your voice is rather 
muffled.  And this isn't an ad hominem attack, whatever the hell that 
means, I (NOTE I ) personally wish you'd bugger off and leave the 
bandwidth to people who genuinely want to discuss Python, computing 
algorithms, whatever.

And please do NOT bother to reply.  Your pathetic smileys and/or HTH 
garbage cut no ice with me.  I'm quite simply staggered that the Python 
community as a whole have shown far more patience than I have, otherwise 
you'd have been shot down in seriously bad flames days ago.

To you, Alf, get stuffed.

To the rest of the Python community, thank you for doing a fantastic 
job, I do appreciate it, and am currently in my own little way 
attempting to put something back in.

Regards.

Mark Lawrence.