[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.python

Re: Modifying Class Object

Martin P. Hellwig

2/11/2010 11:46:00 PM

<cut all>
Well at least you are well written and more subtle than Xah Lee.
Though I find him also quite amusing, I do like a good flame-war every
now and again, and in that perspective I solute you.

--
mph
11 Answers

Alf P. Steinbach

2/12/2010 2:48:00 AM

0

* Martin P. Hellwig:
> <cut all>
> Well at least you are well written and more subtle than Xah Lee.
> Though I find him also quite amusing, I do like a good flame-war every
> now and again, and in that perspective I solute you.

The technical discussion is now at point where one poster maintains that
references don't exist in Python, and another poster, in support, maintains that
"refers to" in the language spec doesn't mean "refers to" but instead means
"refers to", whatever's that meant to mean.

As a technical discussion it's meaningless drivel.

And as an argument in that technical discussion your allegation of trolling is
just yet another fallacy, and meaningless.

But in a social context, declaring support or placing oneself within a group, or
for that matter "Poisoning the well", it can make sense.

This group has an extraordinary high level of flaming and personal attacks, and
it's the only group I've seen where there are threads (I think I've seen 3,
within the last two months, not participating in them) with the regulars
reitererating how "friendly" the group is, how difficult it is to get flamed
here. In other groups it's not necessary for the regulars to point out how
friendly the group is. But then, in other groups personal attacks are rare.

And so when you mention Xah Lee I'm now wondering what is cause, and what is effect.

I was informed that he'd done extensive cross-posting, and his own web site
seems to confirm that his ISP at one time reacted to a complaint about such
cross-posting. I've also seen directly that he has employed pretty foul language
in characterizing Python in an article, and even without that language negative
loaded characterizations without any evidence to back them up (like, for
example, yours above) must be considered intentional flame bait. But did it
start that way for Xah Lee?

I'm not going to check the archives. It's enough, wrt. the point I'm making
about some regulars of the group, that even with such evidence of active
trolling at hand -- ISP reaction to cross-posting, needless foul language,
unsubstantiated characterizations -- based on my experience here I think it's
just as likely that it started out by Xah Lee being flamed, perhaps repeatedly,
with personal attacks and by group action. Or perhaps it didn't, but at this
point it would not surprise me in the slightest.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

Bruno Desthuilliers

2/12/2010 9:46:00 AM

0

Alf P. Steinbach a écrit :
(snip)
> This group has an extraordinary high level of flaming and personal
> attacks

Oh my...

(snip remaining non-sense)

Mr Steinbach, I bet you'll count this as another "flaming" and "personal
attack", but nonetheless : you might have happier time if you were able
to understand the distinction between disagreement and "personal attack".

(now back to more interesting readings)

Alf P. Steinbach

2/12/2010 8:26:00 PM

0

* Bruno Desthuilliers:
> Alf P. Steinbach a écrit :
> (snip)
>> This group has an extraordinary high level of flaming and personal
>> attacks
>
> Oh my...
>
> (snip remaining non-sense)
>
> Mr Steinbach, I bet you'll count this as another "flaming" and "personal
> attack", but nonetheless : you might have happier time if you were able
> to understand the distinction between disagreement and "personal attack".
>
> (now back to more interesting readings)

Yes, I do count this as a personal attack and flaming.

The litmus test for that is that it says something very negative about the
person you're debating with.

In addition, your statement about the earlier attacks on me, is untrue, and your
implication that it's only about attacks on me, is untrue. Both of which are
very misleading, by the way. I'm assuming that you're intentionally lying.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

Steven D'Aprano

2/12/2010 10:45:00 PM

0

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:26:24 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

> Yes, I do count this as a personal attack and flaming.
>
> The litmus test for that is that it says something very negative about
> the person you're debating with.

As negative as accusing somebody of intentionally lying?

Or is it only a personal attack when other people dare to disagree with
Alf P. Steinbach?


> In addition, your statement about the earlier attacks on me, is untrue,
> and your implication that it's only about attacks on me, is untrue. Both
> of which are very misleading, by the way. I'm assuming that you're
> intentionally lying.

Get over yourself. You're not so important that everyone is falling over
themselves to discredit you by intentional lying.

You do bring some technical knowledge and perspectives that is valuable to
this community, but it comes with so much spikiness, near-paranoia and
Freudian projection that it is extremely unpleasant dealing with you.

Since you first came to this community, you have displayed a remarkable
ability to take personal offence at virtually every disagreement, a
deeply paranoid viewpoint that whenever somebody contradicts your
statements they are deliberately lying, and a level of arrogance that is
outstanding even for computer science. (How sure of yourself do you have
to be to write a textbook for beginners in a language that you yourself
are a self-professed beginner in?)

I note with interest that this is not the only forum where your reaction
to disagreement is to accuse others of deliberate lying. It is a habit of
yours, and you've displayed it frequently and repeatedly. For example:

http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/General/comp.programming/2006-08/msg...

http://www.embeddedrelated.com/usenet/embedded/show/43...

http://groups.google.am/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_thread/thread/555331...

I'm no longer willing to tolerate the unpleasant attitudes you
display. So congratulations Alf. I've only kill-filed one other person on
this newsgroup until now. You are now the second. I may reverse it some
time in the future, but for now I'm just not interested in your paranoid
accusations that others are lying about you and your continual misuse of
the term "ad hominem" to refer to any and all criticism of your behaviour.

*plonk*


--
Steven

Alf P. Steinbach

2/12/2010 11:48:00 PM

0

* Steven D'Aprano:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:26:24 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>
>> Yes, I do count this as a personal attack and flaming.
>>
>> The litmus test for that is that it says something very negative about
>> the person you're debating with.
>
> As negative as accusing somebody of intentionally lying?
>
> Or is it only a personal attack when other people dare to disagree with
> Alf P. Steinbach?

Do you mean that everybody else is allowed to get personal, but I, in return, am
not so allowed?


>> In addition, your statement about the earlier attacks on me, is untrue,
>> and your implication that it's only about attacks on me, is untrue. Both
>> of which are very misleading, by the way. I'm assuming that you're
>> intentionally lying.
>
> Get over yourself. You're not so important that everyone is falling over
> themselves to discredit you by intentional lying.

This implies something about my beliefs about my importance, that is, it is
clearly intended as an ad hominem attack.

I'm getting a bit tired of that.



> You do bring some technical knowledge and perspectives that is valuable to
> this community, but it comes with so much spikiness, near-paranoia and
> Freudian projection that it is extremely unpleasant dealing with you.
>
> Since you first came to this community, you have displayed a remarkable
> ability to take personal offence at virtually every disagreement,

That is not true.

I do take offense at pure personal attacks, though.

Personal attacks are about person, technical discussion is about technical things.



> a deeply paranoid viewpoint that whenever somebody contradicts your
> statements they are deliberately lying,

That's just stupid, sorry.

Being paranoid is not about being attacked, or about pointing out when someone's
lying.

Hello.


> and a level of arrogance that is
> outstanding even for computer science. (How sure of yourself do you have
> to be to write a textbook for beginners in a language that you yourself
> are a self-professed beginner in?)
>
> I note with interest that this is not the only forum where your reaction
> to disagreement is to accuse others of deliberate lying.

Your argument gets a bit circular.



> It is a habit of yours,

That is untrue.


> and you've displayed it frequently

No, that is untrue.


> and repeatedly.

Yes, I have repeatedly pointed when people have been lying, citing the evidence
and logic leading to that conclusion.

I wouldn't just "accuse" someone of something like that.

It's far too serious (however, above you're happy with accusing me of being
paranoid and whatever, so I conclude that you have no such qualms).


> For example:
>
> http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/General/comp.programming/2006-08/msg...
>
> http://www.embeddedrelated.com/usenet/embedded/show/43...
>
> http://groups.google.am/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_thread/thread/555331...

Yes, I've been on the net a long time, and consequently I have been involved in
flame wars. :-)[1]

That is no excuse for your behavior.

An extremely long thread dedicated to the notion that there are no references in
Python (which is blatantly false), coupled with personal attacks on the one
person arguing that there are. I could easily think that you were having me on.
Of course most anyone else who'd hold the rational opinion would not join the
battlefield, because it clearly wasn't and isn't about convincing or educating
anyone, but I feel that follow-ups to my articles should be answered.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf


Notes:
[1] Like one here where some guy A objects to some other guy B's use of the
term "portable assembler" about C, where at first I try to defend B's point of
view, since it is after all one employed even by the creators of C. B sensibly
opts out of the discussion while I stay on, predictable result. Another flame
war is with some functional programming fanatic, and a third with a known troll.

Steve Holden

2/13/2010 12:45:00 AM

0

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
[...]
> Of course most anyone else who'd hold the
> rational opinion would not join the battlefield, because it clearly
> wasn't and isn't about convincing or educating anyone, but I feel that
> follow-ups to my articles should be answered.
>
In other words, you must have the last word, a behavioral characteristic
I will avoid drawing the obvious conclusions about for fear of begin
accused (yet again) of making ad hominem attacks.

I suppose you will therefore be unable to resist the temptation to
respond to this. Though I'd love to be proved wrong again.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us....
Holden Web LLC http://www.hold...
UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.event...

Mark Lawrence

2/13/2010 12:48:00 AM

0

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steven D'Aprano:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:26:24 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I do count this as a personal attack and flaming.
>>>
>>> The litmus test for that is that it says something very negative about
>>> the person you're debating with.
>>
>> As negative as accusing somebody of intentionally lying?
>>
>> Or is it only a personal attack when other people dare to disagree
>> with Alf P. Steinbach?
>
> Do you mean that everybody else is allowed to get personal, but I, in
> return, am not so allowed?
>
>
>>> In addition, your statement about the earlier attacks on me, is untrue,
>>> and your implication that it's only about attacks on me, is untrue. Both
>>> of which are very misleading, by the way. I'm assuming that you're
>>> intentionally lying.
>>
>> Get over yourself. You're not so important that everyone is falling
>> over themselves to discredit you by intentional lying.
>
> This implies something about my beliefs about my importance, that is, it
> is clearly intended as an ad hominem attack.
>
> I'm getting a bit tired of that.
>
>
>
>> You do bring some technical knowledge and perspectives that is
>> valuable to
>> this community, but it comes with so much spikiness, near-paranoia and
>> Freudian projection that it is extremely unpleasant dealing with you.
>>
>> Since you first came to this community, you have displayed a
>> remarkable ability to take personal offence at virtually every
>> disagreement,
>
> That is not true.
>
> I do take offense at pure personal attacks, though.
>
> Personal attacks are about person, technical discussion is about
> technical things.
>
>
>
>> a deeply paranoid viewpoint that whenever somebody contradicts your
>> statements they are deliberately lying,
>
> That's just stupid, sorry.
>
> Being paranoid is not about being attacked, or about pointing out when
> someone's lying.
>
> Hello.
>
>
>> and a level of arrogance that is outstanding even for computer
>> science. (How sure of yourself do you have to be to write a textbook
>> for beginners in a language that you yourself are a self-professed
>> beginner in?)
>>
>> I note with interest that this is not the only forum where your
>> reaction to disagreement is to accuse others of deliberate lying.
>
> Your argument gets a bit circular.
>
>
>
>> It is a habit of yours,
>
> That is untrue.
>
>
>> and you've displayed it frequently
>
> No, that is untrue.
>
>
>> and repeatedly.
>
> Yes, I have repeatedly pointed when people have been lying, citing the
> evidence and logic leading to that conclusion.
>
> I wouldn't just "accuse" someone of something like that.
>
> It's far too serious (however, above you're happy with accusing me of
> being paranoid and whatever, so I conclude that you have no such qualms).
>
>
>> For example:
>>
>> http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/General/comp.programming/2006-08/msg...
>>
>>
>> http://www.embeddedrelated.com/usenet/embedded/show/43...
>>
>> http://groups.google.am/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_thread/thread/555331...
>>
>
> Yes, I've been on the net a long time, and consequently I have been
> involved in flame wars. :-)[1]
>
> That is no excuse for your behavior.
>
> An extremely long thread dedicated to the notion that there are no
> references in Python (which is blatantly false), coupled with personal
> attacks on the one person arguing that there are. I could easily think
> that you were having me on. Of course most anyone else who'd hold the
> rational opinion would not join the battlefield, because it clearly
> wasn't and isn't about convincing or educating anyone, but I feel that
> follow-ups to my articles should be answered.
>
>
> Cheers & hth.,
>
> - Alf
>
>
> Notes:
> [1] Like one here where some guy A objects to some other guy B's use of
> the term "portable assembler" about C, where at first I try to defend
> B's point of view, since it is after all one employed even by the
> creators of C. B sensibly opts out of the discussion while I stay on,
> predictable result. Another flame war is with some functional
> programming fanatic, and a third with a known troll.

I'm intrigued by your comments over the last couple of weeks, as you
obviously know so much more about Python than people who have been
working on it and/or using it for the 20 odd years of the existence of
the language. Is it safe to assume that shortly you will be telling the
scientific community that Einstein was a complete bozo and that his
theory of relativity is crap, or that Stephen (Bob?) Hawking knows
nothing about the origins of the universe?

To put it another way, please stand up Alf, your voice is rather
muffled. And this isn't an ad hominem attack, whatever the hell that
means, I (NOTE I ) personally wish you'd bugger off and leave the
bandwidth to people who genuinely want to discuss Python, computing
algorithms, whatever.

And please do NOT bother to reply. Your pathetic smileys and/or HTH
garbage cut no ice with me. I'm quite simply staggered that the Python
community as a whole have shown far more patience than I have, otherwise
you'd have been shot down in seriously bad flames days ago.

To you, Alf, get stuffed.

To the rest of the Python community, thank you for doing a fantastic
job, I do appreciate it, and am currently in my own little way
attempting to put something back in.

Regards.

Mark Lawrence.

Alf P. Steinbach

2/13/2010 1:30:00 AM

0

* Mark Lawrence:
> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>
>> An extremely long thread dedicated to the notion that there are no
>> references in Python (which is blatantly false), coupled with personal
>> attacks on the one person arguing that there are. I could easily think
>> that you were having me on. Of course most anyone else who'd hold the
>> rational opinion would not join the battlefield, because it clearly
>> wasn't and isn't about convincing or educating anyone, but I feel that
>> follow-ups to my articles should be answered.
[snippety]
>
> I'm intrigued by your comments over the last couple of weeks, as you
> obviously know so much more about Python than people who have been
> working on it and/or using it for the 20 odd years of the existence of
> the language.

I don't.

On the other hand, it's a fallacy to think other people must be perfect.

The glossary of my Python 3.1.1 documentation defines

"Reference count:
The number of references to an object. [...]"

And so arguing against the existence of assignable references in Python would be
silly if it was a genuine technical discussion.

But I suspect that, in spite of my /first article's/ reference and frequent
later references to term definitions etc., many who posted in this thread
thought they were arguing against some other point of view, in the frenzy not
bothering to check out things or actually /read/ what they replied to.

So, as demonstrated, assuming that you were referring to people participating in
this thread, people who have used a language for 20 odd years can still be wrong
about something -- even when that something is utterly trivial.


> Is it safe to assume that shortly you will be telling the
> scientific community that Einstein was a complete bozo and that his
> theory of relativity is crap, or that Stephen (Bob?) Hawking knows
> nothing about the origins of the universe?
>
> To put it another way, please stand up Alf, your voice is rather
> muffled. And this isn't an ad hominem attack

Your response *is not* a personal attack?

Then why are you trying to imply all kinds of things about my person, and not
mentioning anything technical?

Is there anything in the above, about assignable references, that you really
think is on a par with relativity and requires Einstein's genius to understand?


>, whatever the hell that
> means, I (NOTE I ) personally wish you'd bugger off and leave the
> bandwidth to people who genuinely want to discuss Python, computing
> algorithms, whatever.
>
> And please do NOT bother to reply. Your pathetic smileys and/or HTH
> garbage cut no ice with me. I'm quite simply staggered that the Python
> community as a whole have shown far more patience than I have, otherwise
> you'd have been shot down in seriously bad flames days ago.
>
> To you, Alf, get stuffed.

Are you sure that this is not a personal attack?

Just curious how you manage to think it couldn't be.


Cheers & hth., ;-)

- Alf

rantingrick

2/13/2010 2:24:00 AM

0

This entire thread has imploded like a neutron star into an infantile
debate that only Caddie Couric, Bill O Reilly, and everyone on PMS-NBC
can hold a candle to! The only post i enjoyed was Steve Howes!

From my unique perspective of not really knowing (or for that matter)
really caring about any of you i can say *some* of you have most
undoubly shown your true colors in this thread!

First of all, we all know how D Aprano has such an unfettered ego
problem. I myself have been the victom of his insults but
simultaniously also found them quite enjoyable (at times) I'd classify
Steven d'Aprano as a "well informed" arsehole with an inner clown
trying to escape.

Then there is "alex23". The only sockpuppet (of many suspects within
this group) that i can 100 percent prove and of whom i knew sooner or
later would come along for his chance at trolling. Just look at his GG
cache and you will see 99% of his post are argmentitve, abusive
trolls! He's a fish that waits for threads like these just so he can
flop around!

As for Alf, no he is not *tecnically* right about the definition of
"ad homine" but that *really* doesn't matter. He has (time and time
again) been personally attacked by some of the more "supposedly
respected" people in this group. And as always the roaches start
coming out of the woodwork in a most "pathetic puppy dog" way. What
would you puppets do if there were no one to pull your strings?

But the most nortoriuos behavior of all belongs to none other that the
PSF chairman himself! Yes "Steve Holden", you should be ashamed of
yourself! Your attacks have been more amd more destructive over the
past year or so. Even if your behavoir could "somehow" be justified
how can someone in your position lead the PSF and act as such an
infintile way? I am very ashamed of you Steve and you really owe Alf
(and the community at large) an apology although i doubt it will
happen because then your own people will turn against you.

I have documented the bad behavours of certain "pythonistas" on this
group for some time now. And my original assumtions that only a
handful of people really follow this group. Maybe one day we will have
a fair playing feild for all but sadly it looks to be more like a pipe
dream!

Sleep well kids!

Dennis Lee Bieber

2/13/2010 9:26:00 AM

0

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:23:46 -0800 (PST), rantingrick
<rantingrick@gmail.com> declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:

> This entire thread has imploded like a neutron star into an infantile
> debate that only Caddie Couric, Bill O Reilly, and everyone on PMS-NBC
> can hold a candle to! The only post i enjoyed was Steve Howes!
>
Unless she's taken to hauling golf clubs for Woods, I think the name
is Katie Couric <G>

{Hmm, I don't recall ever seeing a "rantingrick" on the group before...
could it be... a... "sockpuppet"?}
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/