Aggressive language on python-list

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:

No, I wrote about trolls.  "dicks" is a highly emotive and 
almost totally subjective word that I would not use in a
rational discussion.  Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?

>> >> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
>> >> same.
> > 
> > If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?

Do you really think that in the vast majority of cases that
the poster is blithely unaware of the inflammatory nature 
of their post?  The whole point of trolling is to generate
responses by posting something inflammatory.  It sounds to
me like your view is that most such posts are made by people 
who are simply brand new to the internet (or at least the 
civilized parts of it) and thus, when their error is pointed 
out, will say thanks and change their ways.
 
> > How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for acting 
> > like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because nobody has 
> > anything to add"?

Because you sent them private email telling them that?  (And
if you can't do that, maybe you should take it as a hint that
they're not particularly interested in your "help"?)

> > If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing great 
> > harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will you know to 
> > change your behaviour? 

If that was how you thought, then you would be someone I hope 
would follow my advice.  Because you would clearly seem to be 
unable to distinguish between difference of opinion on a 
subject relevant to the newsgroup, and inflammatory trolling.  
Further you see the situation in extreme terms ("*great 
harm*") and one in which only a single point of view (your's) 
is acceptable.  You would be bordering on delusional by 
thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".  

But even if you had a more rational response and saved 
that reaction for actual trolling and not someone who 
simply disagreed with you, I ask again, what makes you 
think your response will change that troll's behavior,
when in actuality, your kind of response is exactly what
most trolls hope to elicit?  Did it help in the case I
mentioned?

> > How will others know that I do not agree with your 
> > advice?

Why is it so important to you that I and others know what 
you think?  Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I
don't need to read your explicit pronouncement to assume
that you disagree with some repugnant post.

If it were possible to somehow have a single, reasonable
response generated to an offensive post, that would be great.
But I don't think that is possible.  Multiple people will 
feel the need to take on that duty.  Others will feel the
response is not strong enough or doesn't represent their
personal take and post their responses.  Some will respond
righteously to non-offensive posts.  (The use of "troll"
as a synonym for "I/we don't agree with you" is quite 
noticeable in this group.)  The perp will inevitably
followup with more offensive posts in response.  This 
is how things have worked since the invention of mailing
lists and why "don't feed the trolls" has served fairly
well for three decades.