Python 3 is killing Python

[Rick Johnson]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 5:47:14 PM UTC-5, MRAB wrote:
> Why it should "they" withdraw it (whatever that means)?
> "They" are entitled to keep it public if they want to.

I'm not suggesting they *must* withdraw Python, I'm only
suggesting that IF they wish to *prevent* dissent or scrutiny,
then the only remedy they can employ is to "withdraw" the
language from public view. 

I'm merely highlighting the difference between public and
private property. Python is currently public property, and
just as a public park is open to whoever wishes to visit, so
too is the the Python language.

Sure, nobody wants to see the unwashed homeless people
there, feeding the pigeons until they grow so fat they can
only muster sporadic momentary flight, in between Jackson
Pollock inspired park bench repainting sessions via
cementitious bowel ejections... THOSE VERMIN! 

But we must suffer them, because if we believe in freedom,
we must celebrate the "comfortable" whilst suffering the
"uncomfortable".

> Those who aren't interested are not obliged to take any
> notice of it, and any group or individual who wants to
> develop Python 2 further can just fork Python 2.7 and
> continue from there.

Actually, no. You need to understand some ground rules of
free societies:

============================================================
 When a *public* "entity" is created, an "individual" *may*:
============================================================

    * Ignore the entity altogether. At which point, no
    future interaction occurs UNLESS the "individual"
    decides to change his relationship with the *public*
     "entity"

    * Engage the entity in one or more forms:
        1. Participate in debate. Which may include accolades, 
           dissent, or even vile rebukes.
        2. Take from the entity any offerings the entity may
           provide.
        3. All of the above.
        
    You see, the "entity" merely offers something for the
    taking, and the "individual" decides to take the
    offering, or not to take the offering; to participate,
    or not to participate; -- extrapolations to infinity...!
    
    And not only does the "individual" control the time,
    place, and manner of the interaction, he also has the
    capacity to insert or remove himself from participation
    at any time. THIS, is the manner of free "individuals"
    operating in the realm of *public* "entities".
    
An "individual", a FREE individual that is, has many more
choices than the single choice you provided. What you're
attempting to do is "compel" an "individual" to engage a
*public* entity in a manner that is most pleasing to YOU,
and i will not allow that to happen!

I've seen this "vulgar display of animosity" before,
predominately in short, angry white women driving
"Scandinavian armored personnel carriers" (aka: Volvo), with
closely trimmed eyebrows, and beaming scowls of superiority
down on the "little people" as she transports her "honor
role student" to school at twenty miles below the speed
limit!