flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]

[rusi]

On Mar 28, 10:20 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt... at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:49:20 -0700, rusi wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 8:18 am, Ethan Furman <et... at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>
> >> So long as Mark doesn't start cussing and swearing I'm not going to get
> >> worked up about it.  I find jmf's posts for more aggravating.
>
> > I support Ned's original gentle reminder -- Please be civil irrespective
> > of surrounding nonsensical behavior.
>
> > In particular "You are a liar" is as bad as "You are an idiot" The same
> > statement can be made non-abusively thus: "... is not true because ..."
>
> I accept that criticism, even if I disagree with it. Does that make
> sense? I mean it in the sense that I accept that your opinion differs
> from mine.
>
> Politeness does not always trump honesty, and stating that somebody's
> statement "is not true because..." is not the same as stating that they
> are deliberately telling lies (rather than merely being mistaken or
> confused).
>
> The world is full of people who deliberately and in complete awareness of
> what they are doing lie in order to further their agenda, or for profit,
> or to feel good about themselves, or to harm others. There comes a time
> where politely ignoring the elephant in the room (the dirty, rotten,
> lying scoundrel of an elephant) and giving them the benefit of the doubt
> simply makes life worse for everyone except the liars.

We all subscribe to legal systems that decide the undecidable; eg.
A pulled out a gun and killed B.
Was it murder, manslaughter, just a mistake, euthanasia?
Any lawyer with experience knows that horrible mistakes happen in
making these decisions; yet they (the judges) need to make them.
For the purposes of the python list these ascriptions to personal
motives are OT enough to be out of place.

>
> We all know this. Unless you've been living in a cave on the top of some
> mountain, we all know people whose relationship to the truth is, shall we
> say, rather bendy. And yet we collectively muddy the water and inject
> uncertainty into debate by politely going along with their lies, or at
> least treating them with dignity that they don't deserve, by treating
> them as at worst a matter of honest misunderstanding or even mere
> difference of opinion.
>
> As an Australian, I am constitutionally required to call a spade a bloody
> shovel at least twice a week, so I have no regrets.

If someone has got physically injured by the spade then its a bloody
spade; else you are a bloody liar :-)

Well… More seriously Ive never seen anyone -- cause or person -- aided
by the use of excessively strong language.

IOW I repeat my support for Ned's request: Ad hominiem attacks are not
welcome, irrespective of the context/provocation.