Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !

[Ned Batchelder]

On 11/25/13 10:33 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:> On Monday, November 25, 2013 2:10:04 PM UTC-6, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> Let's please avoid veering off into rants about language
>> and philosophy now.
> 
> Hello Ned. I respect the fact that you want to keep threads
> on-topic, and i greatly appreciate the humbleness of your
> request.
> 
> However, i feel as though i am being unfairly treated when
> other people (who shall remain unnamed) started the
> discussion in an off-topic direction long before i chimed
> in.
> 
> And to be fair, i was merely retorting a hasty assertion by
> our friend Steven. Yes, i might have gotten a bit
> philosophical in the process, but the reply itself was
> germane to the sub-topic that Steven propagated up.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply.  I don't mean to single
you out.  Threads that get too far off-track are rarely
identified at the actual point they left the arena.  Usually
it isn't until they are clearly outside, and far enough 
outside that they aren't coming back, that a comment is made.

In particular, I chose to comment on yours because it had
a combination of non-Pythonness, strong language, and no
clear markers of satire.

> Furthermore, I don't believe that applying ridged rules of
> topicality are to the benefit of anyone. Conversations of
> any topic are destined to spin-off in many seemingly
> unrelated directions -- and this is healthy!

I agree.

> As a spectator (or a participant) you can choose to stop
> listening (or participating) at anytime the conversation
> becomes uninteresting to you.

True, but that attitude taken to the extreme is, "anything goes,
and if you are only interested in Python, then only read the xx% of
messages that are about Python."  We also need the list to have
a purpose (Python) and a tone (welcoming).  When posts or threads
stray too far on both, I start to get concerned.

> Some of the greatest debates that i have participated
> in (those that result in epiphany or even catharsis) had
> initially sprung out of seemingly unrelated subject matters
> which slowly built to a crescendo of maximum intensity.
> 
> I don't think we should attempt to restrict debate since it
> is this very debate that results in evolution of not only
> the participants, but also the spectators.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful approach to this, and also for
using only one exclamation point, and no all-caps. :)

--Ned.