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

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 03/28/2013 01:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:42:18 -0700, rusi wrote:
>> More seriously Ive never seen anyone -- cause or person -- aided by
>> the use of excessively strong language.
> 
> Of course not. By definition, if it helps, it wasn't *excessively* strong 
> language.

For someone who delights in pointing out the logical errors 
of others you are often remarkably sloppy in your own logic.

Of course language can be both helpful and excessively strong.
That is the case when language less strong would be
equally or more helpful.

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

Insults may or may not be ad hominem attacks.  There is nothing 
mutually exclusive about those terms.

>     "You sir, are a bounder and a cad. Furthermore, your 
>     argument is wrong, because of reasons."
> 
> may very well be an insult, but it also may be correct, and the reasons 
> logically valid.

Those are two different statements.  The first is an ad hominem 
attack and is not welcome here.  The second is an acceptable 
response.

>     "Your argument is wrong, because you are a bounder 
>     and a cad."
> 
> is an ad hominem fallacy, because even bounders and cads may tell the 
> truth occasionally, or be correct by accident.

That it is a fallacy does not mean it is not also an attack.

> I find it interesting that nobody has yet felt the need to defend JMF, 
> and tell me I was factually incorrect about him (as opposed to merely 
> impolite or mean-spirited).

Nothing "interesting" about it at all.  Most of us (perhaps
unlike you) are not interested in discussing the personal
characteristics of posters here (in contrast to discussing
the technical opinions they post).

Further, "liar" is both so non-objective and so pejoratively 
emotive that it is a word much more likely to be used by 
someone interested in trolling than in a serious discussion, 
so most sensible people here likely would not bite.

>[...] 
> I would rather that you called me a liar to my face 
> and gave me the opportunity to respond, than for you to ignore everything 
> I said.

Even if you personally would prefer someone to respond by 
calling you a liar, your personal preferences do not form 
a basis for desirable posting behavior here.

But again you're creating a false dichotomy.  Those are not 
the only two choices.  A third choice is neither ignore you 
nor call you a liar but to factually point out where you are 
wrong, or (if it is a matter of opinion) why one holds a 
different opinion.  That was the point Ned Deily was making 
I believe.

> I hope that we all agree that we want a nice, friendly, productive 
> community where everyone is welcome. 

I hope so too but it is likely that some people want a place 
to develop and assert some sense of influence, engage in verbal 
duels, instigate arguments, etc.  That can be true of regulars
here as well as drive-by posters.

> But some people simply cannot or 
> will not behave in ways that are compatible with those community values. 
> There are some people whom we *do not want here* 

In other words, everyone is NOT welcome.

> -- spoilers and messers, 
> vandals and spammers and cheats and liars and trolls and crackpots of all 
> sorts. 

Where those terms are defined by you and a handful of other 
voracious posters.  "Troll" in particular is often used to 
mean someone who disagrees with the borg mind here, or who 
says anything negative about Python, or who due attitude or
lack of full English fluency do not express themselves in 
a sufficiently submissive way.

> We only disagree as to the best way to make it clear to them that 
> they are not welcome so long as they continue their behaviour.

No, we disagree on who fits those definitions and even 
how tolerant we are to those who do fit the definitions.
The policing that you and a handful of other self-appointed
net-cops try to do is far more obnoxious that the original 
posts are.

> [1] Although sadly, given the reality of communication on the Internet, 
> sometimes kill-filing is the least-worst option.

Please, please, killfile jmfauth, ranting rick, xaw lee and 
anyone else you don't like so that the rest of us can be spared 
the orders of magnitude larger, more disruptive and more offensive
posts generated by your (plural) responses to them.

Believe or not, most of the rest of us here are smart enough to
form our own opinions of such posters without you and the other
c.l.p truthsquad members telling us what to think.