Google Groups + this list

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 12/26/2013 05:41 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM,  <rurpy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 12/25/2013 09:17 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>[...]
>>> Or maybe I should have just filtered everything from Google Groups
>>> into the bit bucket, because responding just creates threads like
>>> this. Do you honestly think that would be better? No response at all
>>> if the post comes from GG?
>>
>> Do you really think that if *you* ignore Google Groups, then
>> Google Groups posters will get "no response at all"?  Could
>> you please turn down your ego a little?
> 
> That's not what I said, 

On rereading, my interpretation of your statement still seems 
legitimate.  If you don't clarify, then my response can only 
be: yes, that *is* (in effect) what you said.

> and you're still ignoring the primary thrust
> of my posts. 

I wasn't sure what your "primary thrust" was, I asked you 
to remind me and you failed to respond.

If you're referring to, 
  "Why, rurpy, do you continue to support, apologize for, 
  and argue in favour of, a piece of software that is ...."

1. You are continuing to try to misdirect from, *my* primary 
thrust: that in your zeal to make people stop using GG you 
crossed a line by posting some derogatory claims about GG 
that you can not support. I am still waiting for a credible 
explanation from you about how you know that GG is corrupting 
whitespace.

2. I've addressed why I oppose trying to drive people away 
from GG many times, among others in:
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/FFAe5sJ7kQ4/SXXunRofxtEJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/9txi2cB7ppMJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/WRZDOzZd76oJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/41hZ3Si5G0cJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/Rxw7H4yNGh4/jKu57BLvqIUJ
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.python/wh9MzFEHDMM/iwZKSMeRwjQJ
Those are some from 2012 (don't have time to find 2013 ones). 
Many are direct responses to you, most or all are in threads 
you posted in.  Please, instead of just ignoring what I wrote
and repeating the same charges ad infinitum, point out why 
the answers I've already given are wrong.

3. I answered you in a previous post in this thread referring 
you to my explanation of your issue in a concurrent reply to 
Ned B.  Unfortunately that previous post got stuck in the ether
somewhere and just popped out this morning (not your fault of 
course that it wasn't available till now).

4. Virtually all of my responses in the GG wars have been 
only in response to correct or point out some inaccurate 
(IMO) information posted by someone else (often you): that 
Usenet/mailing list/whatever is easy to use as GG, that 
"the community" opposes posts from GG, that the majority 
of people here don't read posts from GG, that GG is 
irredeemably "broken", the alternatives have no significant
problems, that reading GG posts make you go blind, and many 
more I can't recall.  Seldom if ever have I initiated any of 
these debates and have ignored many erroneous or inflammatory 
posts that I could (and perhaps should) have responded to.   

> I'm done debating this with you; I'll continue to push
> people toward options that don't have bugs that inflict themselves on
> everyone else, 

It is the "pushing" I object to.  I've repeatedly said 
if you want tell people about other options you think are 
better and why, I'm all for it.  But making up negative 
stuff up about GG (or anything that you personally don't 
like) should  be totally unacceptable here, and I think it 
is a shame (and sadly illustrative of the deterioration 
of this group) that you (and some others) proudly announce 
your intent to continue.

> and if you continue apologizing for something that
> needs to be fixed, that's your business.

I'm not "apologizing" for GG.  I have acknowledged the problems
their FUd quoting creates.  I have in my own small way tried 
to improve things.  You seem to think though that your opinion 
of how to deal with the problem should be the law.  Again I 
ask you to check your ego. 

Finally, I remind you that the only reason I am in this thread 
is because *you* posted some negative claims about GG that you 
can't support and aren't man enough to admit to.