Pyro stability

[BartlebyScrivener]

Re: Pyro stability

"Some guy hit my fender, and I said to him, 'Be fruitful and multiply,'
but not in those words." --Woody Allen

"Language is a virus from outer space." --William Burroughs

[BartlebyScrivener]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

Chaz Ginger wrote:

>it is supposed to be about PYTHON. Get it?

I agree. And Python is an extremely serious matter calling for decorum
and propriety.

Don't say fuck, ni, peng, or ni-wom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_who_say_Ni

rd

[BartlebyScrivener]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

Chaz Ginger wrote:

>it is supposed to be about PYTHON. Get it?

I agree. And Python is an extremely serious matter calling for decorum
and propriety.

Don't say fuck, ni, peng, or ni-wom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_who_say_Ni

rd

[skip@pobox.com]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)


BeliavskyEnglis h is a rich language, and there are better ways of
Beliavskydoing that.

aahzOh, gimme a fucking break.

I'm with Beliavsky on this one. I can't see any particular reason to curse
in a forum such as c.l.py. It just coarsens the discussion with no obvious
positive benefit as far as I can see.

Skip

[Cliff Wells]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 06:49 -0800, Beliavsky wrote:

Cliff Wells wrote:

The LA Times had a story that claimed that 64% of U.S. citizens use the
word "fuck" and that 74% of us have heard it in public (I'll assume the
remainder are your fellow AOL users). I expect extrapolating these
results worldwide wouldn't be far off the mark (the Brits were quite
successful at spreading this versatile word).

>
If this is supposed to justify using bad language in a public forum, it
is poorly reasoned. Having heard "f***" does not mean they were not
annoyed.
100% of people have seen trash on the street, but that does
not justify littering.

Poorly reasoned or not, it was clearly poorly read, since the article I
mentioned also claimed that the majority of people also used the word.
Odd, I'd think with your selective reading skills you'd simply be able
to ignore words you don't like.

Regardless, I think the idea that certain words are profanity is fairly
silly. They are words. It's the meaning and intent behind them that
can be offensive. If someone says "fuck off" then I'd expect you to be
offended *since that was the intent of the message* (of course if you
manage to not be offended then that makes you the better man, but
apparently that's rarely strived for). On the other hand if someone
says "that's fucking great" in a positive way and you are offended by
it, well I'd say that's *your* problem and your best bet is to turn off
your TV, your PC, your radio, stop reading and try to limit interactions
with other people lest you be overwhelmed by how they really speak and
act.

If a group of people don't mind profanity, there
is no harm in their swearing to each other. But Usenet is read by a
wide range of people, and needlessly offending some of them is wrong.

I halfway agree with you. I tend to limit my profanity in public forums
and when speaking to strangers, etc. On the other hand, when in public
I also expect to hear that language from others and am not offended by
it.

And expecting anyone to escape without offense on Usenet is pretty
unrealistic.

The OP used "f******" just for emphasis. English is a rich language,
and there are better ways of doing that.

Hm, lots of people disagree with you. In fact, simply because that word
*does* happen to be less widely used in this group it gave it extra
emphasis and was probably the most effective word he could have used in
this particular instance. I don't think anyone here will have forgotten
his endorsement anytime soon.

Incidentally, using **** to disguise "profanity" when the intended word
is perfectly understood is pretty silly too. I strongly suspect you'd
be just as offended if I said "f*** off" as if I'd typed it out. Once
again, intent and meaning are what matter rather than a particular
sequence of characters.

Regards,
Cliff

[BartlebyScrivener]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)


skip@pobox.com wrote:

I'm with Beliavsky on this one. I can't see any particular reason to curse
in a forum such as c.l.py. It just coarsens the discussion with no obvious
positive benefit as far as I can see.

All true. But it's like picking your nose. Yes, it's bad manners in
public, but if somebody does it, why jump on it and call attention to
it? It just makes the thread three times longer. It's easier and more
efficient to just ignore it.

I say this after posting three messages on the topic :)

rd

[Carl J. Van Arsdall]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

BartlebyScriven er wrote:

Chaz Ginger wrote:
>
>

>>it is supposed to be about PYTHON. Get it?
>>>

>
I agree. And Python is an extremely serious matter calling for decorum
and propriety.
>

Lol, is it really now? And I suppose its your definition of decorum and
not mine right? Things like that are always relative. I think decorum
would state that you should be an adult and not make a big deal out of
nothing. But that's just me, and as I said, its all relative.

(and honestly, if you thought the word fuck was bad, you should really
be offended by my profanity-free statement above).

-c


--

Carl J. Van Arsdall
cvanarsdall@mvi sta.com
Build and Release
MontaVista Software

[Cliff Wells]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 10:12 -0800, Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:

BartlebyScriven er wrote:

I agree. And Python is an extremely serious matter calling for decorum
and propriety.

Lol, is it really now? And I suppose its your definition of decorum and
not mine right? Things like that are always relative. I think decorum
would state that you should be an adult and not make a big deal out of
nothing. But that's just me, and as I said, its all relative.

I think you missed the irony in his statement (or perhaps confused
BartlebyScriven er with Beliavsky, who was the original plaintiff).

Regards,
Cliff

[olsongt@verizon.net]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)


BartlebyScriven er wrote:

Chaz Ginger wrote:
>

it is supposed to be about PYTHON. Get it?

>
I agree. And Python is an extremely serious matter calling for decorum
and propriety.
>
Don't say fuck, ni, peng, or ni-wom.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_who_say_Ni

>
rd

Does using foobar in examples count as profanity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar

[Carl J. Van Arsdall]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

Cliff Wells wrote:

On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 10:12 -0800, Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:
>

>BartlebyScrive ner wrote:
>>

>
>

>>I agree. And Python is an extremely serious matter calling for decorum
>>and propriety.
>>>
>>>

>Lol, is it really now? And I suppose its your definition of decorum and
>not mine right? Things like that are always relative. I think decorum
>would state that you should be an adult and not make a big deal out of
>nothing. But that's just me, and as I said, its all relative.
>>

>
I think you missed the irony in his statement (or perhaps confused
BartlebyScriven er with Beliavsky, who was the original plaintiff).
>
>

Ah, yea, you are right. My apologies.

-c


--

Carl J. Van Arsdall
cvanarsdall@mvi sta.com
Build and Release
MontaVista Software

[Paddy]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)


Aahz wrote:

In article <1162997345.277 966.31860@h48g2 000cwc.googlegr oups.com>,
Beliavsky <beliavsky@aol. comwrote:

If this is supposed to justify using bad language in a public forum,
it is poorly reasoned. Having heard "f***" does not mean they were not
annoyed. 100% of people have seen trash on the street, but that does
not justify littering. If a group of people don't mind profanity, there
is no harm in their swearing to each other. But Usenet is read by a
wide range of people, and needlessly offending some of them is wrong.
The OP used "f******" just for emphasis. English is a rich language,
and there are better ways of doing that.

>
Oh, gimme a f****** break. Do a simple Gooja search to find out how
often people already use "f***" around here. I think you're the one who
needs to justify your position.
--
Aahz (aahz@pythoncra ft.com) <* http://www.pythoncraft.com/
>

I too know your wrong Aahz. The written word is not the same as that
spoken. People should make an effort to put across their meaning in a
clear manner. If I were going to an interview I would be very careful
about swearing and most likely not do it. People complain about the
friendliness and tone of groups, and mention it when talking about
programming languages.

Not everyone swears like Eddy Murphy in Beverley Hills Cop, and a lot
of those that do, would not do so when they want to impress, or
communicate with a stranger.

The tone of comp.lang.pytho n *is* an asset, I think, to Python that
swearing will diminish.

- Paddy.

P.S. I did a google search and found 540,000 hits for python in c.l.p.
and only 121 for f***. thats less than one in a thousand. Lets keep it
that way please.

[Carl J. Van Arsdall]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

Paddy wrote:

Aahz wrote:
>

>In article <1162997345.277 966.31860@h48g2 000cwc.googlegr oups.com>,
>Beliavsky <beliavsky@aol. comwrote:
>>

>>If this is supposed to justify using bad language in a public forum,
>>it is poorly reasoned. Having heard "f***" does not mean they were not
>>annoyed. 100% of people have seen trash on the street, but that does
>>not justify littering. If a group of people don't mind profanity, there
>>is no harm in their swearing to each other. But Usenet is read by a
>>wide range of people, and needlessly offending some of them is wrong.
>>The OP used "f******" just for emphasis. English is a rich language,
>>and there are better ways of doing that.
>>>

>Oh, gimme a f****** break. Do a simple Gooja search to find out how
>often people already use "f***" around here. I think you're the one who
>needs to justify your position.
>--
>Aahz (aahz@pythoncra ft.com) <* http://www.pythoncraft.com/
>>
>>

I too know your wrong Aahz. The written word is not the same as that
spoken. People should make an effort to put across their meaning in a
clear manner. If I were going to an interview I would be very careful
about swearing and most likely not do it. People complain about the
friendliness and tone of groups, and mention it when talking about
programming languages.
>
Not everyone swears like Eddy Murphy in Beverley Hills Cop, and a lot
of those that do, would not do so when they want to impress, or
communicate with a stranger.
>
The tone of comp.lang.pytho n *is* an asset, I think, to Python that
swearing will diminish.
>

You are comparing interviews to usenet. I somehow see a disconnect. I
don't think many people are going to go to a potential employer and say
"hey fuck face, how the fuck are ya?" Yea, its not likely to happen, in
most cases people might even dress up to an interview and use all of
their professionalism s as to not appear as they would at home. However
communicating with people (cause that's what this is, its just people
talking to one another about Python and the health of this forum) should
be done as people see fit. Although you mentioned impressing people
etc, is it really important to impress people here by watching your P's
and Q's? What impresses me here is someone's command of the language, I
could really give a rats ass how they choose to disseminate their
expertise.

As its been mentioned before, its one thing for me or anyone else to get
in someone's face and be like "listen you little fuck, use a while
loop." But that was clearly not the context. Using an expletive as an
adjective does not diminish the "friendless " of the group unless you are
complete prude. Granted, there are tons of them, I think that the real
issue is that people need to learn to ignore things they don't like and
not be so *damn* sensitive. Meaning is clearly conveyed, people's
sensitivity is their own issue and I think too many people have gotten
way to used to the political correctness shoved down our throats by
society. Again, that's just my take on it, but those of you who would
be offended by my statements and use of colorful language to describe my
love of technology should probably just adjust your spam filters to scan
for my name or emails that use words you can't handle. Its kind of like
not watching tv shows that bother as opposed to raising a stink and
having them taken off the air.

Hopefully now the count is more like 124.

/rant

--

Carl J. Van Arsdall
cvanarsdall@mvi sta.com
Build and Release
MontaVista Software

[Aahz]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

In article <mailman.1907.1 163003856.11739 .python-list@python.org >,
<skip@pobox.com wrote:

>
BeliavskyEnglis h is a rich language, and there are better ways of
Beliavskydoing that.
>
aahzOh, gimme a fucking break.
>
>I'm with Beliavsky on this one. I can't see any particular reason to curse
>in a forum such as c.l.py. It just coarsens the discussion with no obvious
>positive benefit as far as I can see.

Actually, I do agree that profanity "should" be avoided on c.l.py; what
I disagree with rather vociferously is having language police like
Beliavsky. I consider Beliavsky's offense far worse than the original
post.
--
Aahz (aahz@pythoncra ft.com) <* http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"In many ways, it's a dull language, borrowing solid old concepts from
many other languages & styles: boring syntax, unsurprising semantics,
few automatic coercions, etc etc. But that's one of the things I like
about it." --Tim Peters on Python, 16 Sep 1993

[Cliff Wells]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 10:42 -0800, Paddy wrote:

I too know your wrong Aahz. The written word is not the same as that
spoken. People should make an effort to put across their meaning in a
clear manner. If I were going to an interview I would be very careful
about swearing and most likely not do it. People complain about the
friendliness and tone of groups, and mention it when talking about
programming languages.

But of course, this was never about "friendline ss or tone". The person
who uttered the dreaded word was actually speaking quite positively
about Pyro. The complaint was about the use of a particular word, not
the intent of it.

Not everyone swears like Eddy Murphy in Beverley Hills Cop, and a lot
of those that do, would not do so when they want to impress, or
communicate with a stranger.

But of course "not everyone" is a double-edged sword that can just as
easily be turned against either party. If we limit ourselves to saying
what is going to be the most palatable for the widest audience we will
most likely find ourselves confined to discussing the weather.

And of course, people who worry too much about impressing others rarely
do. Just ask DHH of Ruby on Rails fame:

http://static.flickr.com/47/127984254_ddd4363d6a_m.jpg

Personally I find people trying to impose their personal beliefs on
others to be at least as offensive as any particular swear word and
about a million times as dangerous.

P.S. I did a google search and found 540,000 hits for python in c.l.p.
and only 121 for f***. thats less than one in a thousand. Lets keep it
that way please.

Well, I think that's a good point: the one instance we had that spawned
this thread fell well within this "one-in-a-thousand" boundary. So
there was no indication that c.l.py was in danger of turning into a
sailor's bar.

I'll apply an old software maxim (from sendmail?) to the topic of public
interaction: "Be liberal in what you accept, conservative in what you
send." Applying this would suggest that both parties were equally at
fault in this situation, so perhaps we can just leave it at that.

Regards,
Cliff

[Cliff Wells]

Re: profanity on comp.lang.pytho n (was Re: Pyro stability)

On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 11:18 -0800, Aahz wrote:

In article <mailman.1907.1 163003856.11739 .python-list@python.org >,
<skip@pobox.com wrote:

I'm with Beliavsky on this one. I can't see any particular reason to curse
in a forum such as c.l.py. It just coarsens the discussion with no obvious
positive benefit as far as I can see.

>
Actually, I do agree that profanity "should" be avoided on c.l.py; what
I disagree with rather vociferously is having language police like
Beliavsky. I consider Beliavsky's offense far worse than the original
post.

I think this sums up my point of view as well (although I would have
used around 3215 more words to say it).

Cliff