python adds an extra half space when reading from a string or list

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 07/03/2013 03:21 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 03-07-13 02:30, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
>> If your going to point out something negative about someone
>> then do so politely.  Ask yourself if you were pointing out 
>> incompetence to your boss (or anyone else where impoliteness
>> could have real consequences for you) if you would say, 
>> "you're incompetent." 
> 
> And so we shift from no problem speaking bluntly or clearly
> to wording it in a way that wouldn't antagonize your boss
> too much.

As I pointed out, emotionally-loaded, judgmental language 
*is not* clear.  And yes, I think "wouldn't antagonize your
boss" is not a bad heuristic for judging the politeness of 
your response.  You shouldn't be asking for respect from 
other posters here if you're not willing to provide the 
same respect IMO.  But even if you reject that there is
the fundamental nature of people: that if you disrespect 
others they are likely to respond in kind and (IMO) most 
people here find the resulting climate unpleasant.  You
can't do much about trolls who occasionally show up and 
disrespect you but you can promote a climate of respect
by not responding in kind.

> Off course that would also mean throwing out remarks like:
> 
> ] You have betrayed the trust of all your customers.
> 
> Which seemed to be accepted on this list without a problem.

There are many things "accepted on this list" that are
questionable.

Again I ask, what does his web site admin skills or lack
thereof have to do with python?

If you want to decline providing Python help to someone 
because you don't like some real-world behavior of the 
person, fine.  But when you attack him over it, and 
publicly engage in a long, noisy discussion here in 
which you trumpet your moral and technical superiority,
then you should not be surprised when the target takes 
offense and responds in kind.

If someone from Wikileaks posts here seeking Python help, 
should we engage in a long discussion about the morality 
of Wikileaks and how they aid US fugitives from justice?

How about someone who lets slip he's just been released 
from prison for child sexual abuse? 

How about someone who's writing software for bulk mailing?

How about someone who is writing membership management 
software for the American Nazi Party? 

>> Please use non-emotional, neutral, factual descriptions
>> and only do so when it is actually relevant.  IOW, please 
>> resist your desire to "tell off" the poster -- it usually
>> just produces more responses in kind.
> 
> This is often not workable. Limiting to factual description
> means that you often can't summarize a list of such factual
> descriptions into a conclusion. You can list 8 examples of
> someone betraying the trust of his customers but you can't
> summarize it into: "is/behaves untrustworthy to his customers,"
> even if all signs point to this person going to continue in the
> same vein.
> 
> It is limiting yourself into pointing out all the trees
> without being allowed to call it a forest.

You can summarize while being polite and non-judgmental.

You do not have state your belief on every off-topic 
inflammatory subject that happens to come up.

And if you don't want to help someone because of something 
you don't like about them, you don't have to.  But you also 
don't have to tell all of us why we should agree with you or
try to publicly bully into not helping those who don't share 
your opinion.