I am proud to announce the release of Pyfora (http://pyfora.org), an online community of Python enthusiasts to supplement comp.lang.python and #python. While the site is small right now, please feel free to register and post any questions or tips you may have.
If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community effort!
Saketh <saketh.bhamidip...@gmail.com> writes: > I am proud to announce the release of Pyfora (http://pyfora.org), an > online community of Python enthusiasts to supplement comp.lang.python > and #python.
And the reason to want to further fragment Python discussion is exactly what?
>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community >> effort!
> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community.
When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"?
Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have responded to him the same way?
> Rather, please direct seekers to the existing forums (the IRC channel, > the Usenet groups and mailing lists) rather than setting up new walled > gardens.
Daniel Fetchinson wrote: >>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community >>> effort!
>> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community.
> When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do > you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"?
> Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact > email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have > responded to him the same way?
Most probably not - but then because Tim certainly would have discussed this move with peers from the community, if there is a need for this kind of forum or not.
Being from germany, I can say that we *have* this fragmentation, and frankly: I don't like it. I prefer my communication via NNTP/ML, and not with those visually rather noisy and IMHO suboptimal forums. E.g. it requires much more effort to get to know what new discussions arose, as well as following ongoing ones - because the interface lacks a comprehensive overview of that, and features like "jump to next unread article".
>>>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community >>>> effort!
>>> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community.
>> When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do >> you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"?
>> Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact >> email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have >> responded to him the same way?
> Most probably not - but then because Tim certainly would have discussed this > move with peers from the community, if there is a need for this kind of > forum or not.
> Being from germany, I can say that we *have* this fragmentation, and > frankly: I don't like it. I prefer my communication via NNTP/ML, and not > with those visually rather noisy and IMHO suboptimal forums.
If you prefer NNTP/ML, I'd suggest you pay attention to these channels only. BTW, I prefer ML also and I'm very happy with c.l.p. However that doesn't mean that I need to be hostile to other forms of communication and it doesn't mean that I need to discourage people from setting up other channels of communication for those folks who prefer them.
If new channels open up for others it will not make c.l.p any worse. If enough people like c.l.p. it will continue to be a good channel, if too many too good people switch to an online forum, well, in that case c.l.p. will cease to be great, but it won't be because of artificial fragmentation by somebody but because the people started to prefer online forums (words like "free market" come to mind :))
I generally not register on any online forum and will most probably not register on pyfora either. But I know for a fact that many people prefer forums over ML and why shouldn't those people be happy with the communication platform they like and why shouldn't they be given a chance to join the python community if the only reason they stayed away was that they didn't like c.l.p. for one reason or another?
> E.g. it > requires much more effort to get to know what new discussions arose, as > well as following ongoing ones - because the interface lacks a > comprehensive overview of that, and features like "jump to next unread > article".
These are perfectly legitimate reasons for you to not use online forums and stick to c.l.p. I do the same thing. But again, if an enthusiastic python community member wants to open new channels for those folks who like them, why should anyone be hostile to him/her?
>>>>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community >>>>> effort! >>>> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community. >>> When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do >>> you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"?
>>> Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact >>> email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have >>> responded to him the same way? >> Most probably not - but then because Tim certainly would have discussed this >> move with peers from the community, if there is a need for this kind of >> forum or not.
>> Being from germany, I can say that we *have* this fragmentation, and >> frankly: I don't like it. I prefer my communication via NNTP/ML, and not >> with those visually rather noisy and IMHO suboptimal forums.
> If you prefer NNTP/ML, I'd suggest you pay attention to these channels > only. BTW, I prefer ML also and I'm very happy with c.l.p. However > that doesn't mean that I need to be hostile to other forms of > communication and it doesn't mean that I need to discourage people > from setting up other channels of communication for those folks who > prefer them.
Since when is the mere suggestion that fragmentation will occur and if that's a desirable consequence is hostile? The OP is not bound to it, and I also don't see the tone used by the two immediate answerers being hostile. Paul might have been terse - but hostility looks different IMHO.
The OP *might* come to the conclusion that further fragmenting the community isn't within his personal goals either. OTOH, he might also simply think that once his forum gained traction, he can switch on the google ads, and cash in. Which a forum announced by Tim Peters, run under python.org wouldn't I'd say.
> If new channels open up for others it will not make c.l.p any worse.
It will, if they catch on. As some competent people will move away. Again, this is the case in the german python scene, and it plain sucks. We have a ML, a NG, and a forum. None of them is synchronized in any way. We wanted to do this for ML and NG - but the guy responsible for the ML can't be reached, or refuses to answer.
If we had only one source, fragmentation wouldn't occur, and the competence would be bundled. That I personally prefer MLs and NGs doesn't mean that I wouldn't turn to the forum if it was *the* way to talk about Python. But as it stands, there are three kind of things, of which I'm already subsribed to two - and am annoyed of people posting questions in both of them.
Now, I can't do anything about it in the sense that I can forbid it. But questioning the move to create a new form of exchange (especially something rather uninspired, in contrast to e.g. stackoverflow) I can.
> If enough people like c.l.p. it will continue to be a good channel, if > too many too good people switch to an online forum, well, in that case > c.l.p. will cease to be great, but it won't be because of artificial > fragmentation by somebody but because the people started to prefer > online forums (words like "free market" come to mind :))
Yes. Or all of them suck equally. Free market again. I'm not against it, but asking the OP if he really thinks the value of his forum outweighs the risk of making existing fora worse is a valid question. Free speech, one other nice free thing out there.
> I generally not register on any online forum and will most probably > not register on pyfora either. But I know for a fact that many people > prefer forums over ML and why shouldn't those people be happy with the > communication platform they like and why shouldn't they be given a > chance to join the python community if the only reason they stayed > away was that they didn't like c.l.p. for one reason or another?
>> E.g. it >> requires much more effort to get to know what new discussions arose, as >> well as following ongoing ones - because the interface lacks a >> comprehensive overview of that, and features like "jump to next unread >> article".
> These are perfectly legitimate reasons for you to not use online > forums and stick to c.l.p. I do the same thing. But again, if an > enthusiastic python community member wants to open new channels for > those folks who like them, why should anyone be hostile to him/her?
On Nov 1, 8:06 am, Saketh <saketh.bhamidip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I am proud to announce the release of Pyfora (http://pyfora.org), an > online community of Python enthusiasts to supplement comp.lang.python > and #python. While the site is small right now, please feel free to > register and post any questions or tips you may have.
I'll feel free to not even bookmark it. I'm sorry, but it is just a bad idea.
Your forum cannot (and should not) compete either with Python's official newsgroup, IRC channel and mailing list or with popular, well- made and well-frequented general programming sites like stackoverflow.com.
It would be the Internet equivalent of looking for a poker tournament in a desert valley instead of driving half an hour less and going to Las Vegas: there are no incentives to choose your forum, except perhaps for isolationists who value being a big fish in a small pond over being part of a community.
If you want to claim a small Python-related corner of the web, you should write a blog: if it is any good, and probably even if it isn't, it would be linked and read by someone and it would add to collective knowledge instead of fragmenting it.
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:11:59 -0800, Lorenzo Gatti wrote: > On Nov 1, 8:06 am, Saketh <saketh.bhamidip...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi everyone,
>> I am proud to announce the release of Pyfora (http://pyfora.org), an >> online community of Python enthusiasts to supplement comp.lang.python >> and #python. While the site is small right now, please feel free to >> register and post any questions or tips you may have.
> I'll feel free to not even bookmark it. I'm sorry, but it is just a bad > idea.
> Your forum cannot (and should not) compete either with Python's official > newsgroup, IRC channel and mailing list or with popular, well- made and > well-frequented general programming sites like stackoverflow.com.
Are you saying that now that comp.lang.python and stackoverflow exists, there no more room in the world for any more Python forums?
I think that's terrible.
Saketh, would you care to give a brief explanation for sets your forum apart from the existing Python forums, and why people should choose to spend time there instead of (or as well as) the existing forums? What advantages does it have?
> It would be the Internet equivalent of looking for a poker tournament in > a desert valley instead of driving half an hour less and going to Las > Vegas: there are no incentives to choose your forum, except perhaps for > isolationists who value being a big fish in a small pond over being part > of a community.
(Funny you mention Las Vegas -- it started off as a tiny little town in the middle of the desert too.)
How about avoiding the noise and obtrusive advertising and bright lights of Las Vegas, the fakery, the "showmanship", the horrible fake pyramid and has-been celebrities, the crowds, the tackiness, the high prices, the bright lights that never turn off (Las Vegas is the brightest city on Earth)... if you're interested in poker without all the mayonnaise, maybe that poker tournament away from the tourists is exactly what you need.
Personally, if I wanted to gamble, the last place I would go is any house which had gold-plated taps in the bathrooms. That tells me the house's percentage is *way* too high.
> Daniel Fetchinson schrieb: >>>>>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community >>>>>> effort! >>>>> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community. >>>> When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do >>>> you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"?
>>>> Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact >>>> email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have >>>> responded to him the same way? >>> Most probably not - but then because Tim certainly would have discussed >>> this >>> move with peers from the community, if there is a need for this kind of >>> forum or not.
>>> Being from germany, I can say that we *have* this fragmentation, and >>> frankly: I don't like it. I prefer my communication via NNTP/ML, and not >>> with those visually rather noisy and IMHO suboptimal forums.
>> If you prefer NNTP/ML, I'd suggest you pay attention to these channels >> only. BTW, I prefer ML also and I'm very happy with c.l.p. However >> that doesn't mean that I need to be hostile to other forms of >> communication and it doesn't mean that I need to discourage people >> from setting up other channels of communication for those folks who >> prefer them.
> Since when is the mere suggestion that fragmentation will occur and if > that's a desirable consequence is hostile? The OP is not bound to it, > and I also don't see the tone used by the two immediate answerers being > hostile. Paul might have been terse - but hostility looks different IMHO.
I was referring to this comment by Ben:
"Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the OP is fragmenting the community, which is something negative, i.e. it contains negative prejudice. What I would have written in Ben's place:
Have you considered the possibility that your website will further fragment the community?
This wouldn't have been hostile, IMHO.
> The OP *might* come to the conclusion that further fragmenting the > community isn't within his personal goals either. OTOH, he might also > simply think that once his forum gained traction, he can switch on the > google ads, and cash in. Which a forum announced by Tim Peters, run > under python.org wouldn't I'd say.
>> If new channels open up for others it will not make c.l.p any worse.
> It will, if they catch on. As some competent people will move away.
Competent people will only move away if the website is great/fun/useful/etc. In which case we should welcome it, since something great/fun/useful/etc is a good thing. If it's not great/fun/useful/etc competent people will not move away, in which case c.l.p. will not be any worse as a result of launching the new website.
> Again, this is the case in the german python scene, and it plain sucks. > We have a ML, a NG, and a forum. None of them is synchronized in any > way. We wanted to do this for ML and NG - but the guy responsible for > the ML can't be reached, or refuses to answer.
Welcome to open source, the world of infinitely many forks, code variants, MLs, forums, NGs, websites, in other words, welcome to the bazaar!
> If we had only one source, fragmentation wouldn't occur, and the > competence would be bundled. That I personally prefer MLs and NGs > doesn't mean that I wouldn't turn to the forum if it was *the* way to > talk about Python. But as it stands, there are three kind of things, of > which I'm already subsribed to two - and am annoyed of people posting > questions in both of them.
> Now, I can't do anything about it in the sense that I can forbid it. But > questioning the move to create a new form of exchange (especially > something rather uninspired, in contrast to e.g. stackoverflow) I can.
>> If enough people like c.l.p. it will continue to be a good channel, if >> too many too good people switch to an online forum, well, in that case >> c.l.p. will cease to be great, but it won't be because of artificial >> fragmentation by somebody but because the people started to prefer >> online forums (words like "free market" come to mind :))
> Yes. Or all of them suck equally. Free market again. I'm not against it, > but asking the OP if he really thinks the value of his forum outweighs > the risk of making existing fora worse is a valid question. Free speech, > one other nice free thing out there.
>> I generally not register on any online forum and will most probably >> not register on pyfora either. But I know for a fact that many people >> prefer forums over ML and why shouldn't those people be happy with the >> communication platform they like and why shouldn't they be given a >> chance to join the python community if the only reason they stayed >> away was that they didn't like c.l.p. for one reason or another?
>>> E.g. it >>> requires much more effort to get to know what new discussions arose, as >>> well as following ongoing ones - because the interface lacks a >>> comprehensive overview of that, and features like "jump to next unread >>> article".
>> These are perfectly legitimate reasons for you to not use online >> forums and stick to c.l.p. I do the same thing. But again, if an >> enthusiastic python community member wants to open new channels for >> those folks who like them, why should anyone be hostile to him/her?
On Nov 3, 11:37 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:11:59 -0800, Lorenzo Gatti wrote: [...] > Are you saying that now that comp.lang.python and stackoverflow exists, > there no more room in the world for any more Python forums?
> I think that's terrible.
Although there is a high barrier to entry for general Python forums, it is not a problem because the door is always open for specialized forums that become the natural "home" of some group or thought leader or of some special interest, for example the forum of a new software product or of the fans of an important blog.
Unfortunately, pyfora.org has neither a distinct crowd behind it nor an unique topic, and thus no niche to fill; it can only contribute fragmentation, which is unfortunate because Saketh seems enthusiastic.
What in some fields (e.g. warez forums or art boards) would be healthy redundancy and competition between sites and forums becomes pure fragmentation if the only effect of multiple forums is to separate the same questions and opinions that would be posted elsewhere from potential readers and answerers. Reasonable people know this and post their requests for help and discussions either in the same appropriate places as everyone else or in random places they know and like; one needs serious personal issues to abandon popular forums for obscure ones.
> Saketh, would you care to give a brief explanation for sets your forum > apart from the existing Python forums, and why people should choose to > spend time there instead of (or as well as) the existing forums? What > advantages does it have?
That's the point, I couldn't put it better.
> > It would be the Internet equivalent of looking for a poker tournament in > > a desert valley instead of driving half an hour less and going to Las > > Vegas: > > [...] > How about avoiding the noise and obtrusive advertising and bright lights > of Las Vegas, the fakery, the "showmanship", > [...] > if you're interested in poker without all the mayonnaise, maybe > that poker tournament away from the tourists is exactly what you need.
I didn't explain my similitude clearly: I was comparing the fitness for purpose of going to Las Vegas with a plan to gamble with the absurdity of stopping, say, at an isolated gas station in the hope of finding a poker tournament there. If you are hinting that popular newsgroups and forums might be so full of fakery, showmanship, mayonnaise, etc. to deserve secession, it's another topic.
Lorenzo Gatti wrote: > On Nov 1, 8:06 am, Saketh <saketh.bhamidip...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi everyone,
>> I am proud to announce the release of Pyfora (http://pyfora.org), an >> online community of Python enthusiasts to supplement comp.lang.python >> and #python. While the site is small right now, please feel free to >> register and post any questions or tips you may have.
> I'll feel free to not even bookmark it. I'm sorry, but it is just a > bad idea. [...]
I agree.
> Your forum cannot (and should not) compete either with Python's > official newsgroup, IRC channel and mailing list or with popular, well- > made and well-frequented general programming sites like > stackoverflow.com. [...]
The good thing is, unless something the announced new forum gets critical mass, it will just slowly (or not-so-slowly die).
But even though I'm an old-timer who still prefers newsgroups/mailing lists, I think that there should be something better, browser based. In particular supporting moderation/voting and tagging/filtering.
>> "Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
>> This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the >> OP is fragmenting the community
> It presupposes nothing of any goal. It describes a predictable result of > the OP's efforts, and requests those efforts to cease.
> So I deny the characterisation of that request as hostile.
Probably this thread is going by far too far :) but let's see this again,
If A says to B "please don't do X" then A assumes that B does X. Otherwise the request of A doesn't make sense, since it doesn't make sense to ask somebody not to do something that he/she is not doing.
Agreed?
If no, please explain why you don't agree.
If yes, then I guess we will also agree that if A says to B "please don't make efforts to do X" then request of A only makes sense if B makes an effort to do X.
Agreed?
If no, please explain why.
If yes, great, let's continue! If A says to B "please don't make efforts to fragment the community" then this request from A only makes sense if B makes an effort to fragment the community.
Agreed?
If no, why not?
If yes, we are almost there! In our example the request of A only makes sense if B is making an effort to fragment the community, in other words, assuming that A tries to make a meaningful request, A is assuming that B is making an effort to fragment the community.
Agreed?
If not, why not?
If yes, with the substitution A = Ben and B = OP we get "in order for Ben's request to make sense, Ben has to assume that the OP is making an effort to fragment the community". This assumption on the part of Ben, I think, is hostile, since it assumes that the OP is making an effort to do something not nice. Whether the OP is indeed doing something not nice, is irrelevant. If the OP does do something not nice, the hostility is warranted. If the OP is not doing anything not nice, the hostility is unwarranted. But the fact that Ben was hostile is a fact :)
>> Since when is the mere suggestion that fragmentation will occur and if >> that's a desirable consequence is hostile? The OP is not bound to it, >> and I also don't see the tone used by the two immediate answerers being >> hostile. Paul might have been terse - but hostility looks different IMHO.
> I was referring to this comment by Ben:
> "Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
> This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the > OP is fragmenting the community, which is something negative, i.e. it > contains negative prejudice. What I would have written in Ben's place:
> Have you considered the possibility that your website will further > fragment the community?
> This wouldn't have been hostile, IMHO.
Well, this is *deep* into the realms of semantics and dialectics. To an extend that personal prejudice would change the perception of the sentence. If everything posted here (and elsewhere) had to be worded so carefully, we'd hardly discussing anything at all.
> Competent people will only move away if the website is > great/fun/useful/etc. In which case we should welcome it, since > something great/fun/useful/etc is a good thing. If it's not > great/fun/useful/etc competent people will not move away, in which > case c.l.p. will not be any worse as a result of launching the new > website.
There is not only the problem of people moving away - but also of them not even finding *this* place to discuss because they found pyfora first, and thus the "danger" of them getting not the good answers they are looking for. This sometimes already happens, if one of the google ad farms out there that tries to lure people onto their pages simply reproduces c.l.py content - and people believe it's a genuine forum - and wonder why they don't get answers there.
> Welcome to open source, the world of infinitely many forks, code > variants, MLs, forums, NGs, websites, in other words, welcome to the > bazaar!
Oh please. If every dissent on the direction of an open-source project (or commercial one) would lead to forking, we'd end up with a lot of projects which none of them being competitive and mature. So can we scrap this straw-man of an argument?
Daniel Fetchinson wrote: >>>I was referring to this comment by Ben:
>>>"Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
>>>This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the >>>OP is fragmenting the community
>>It presupposes nothing of any goal. It describes a predictable result of >>the OP's efforts, and requests those efforts to cease.
>>So I deny the characterisation of that request as hostile.
[mass snippitude]
> If yes, with the substitution A = Ben and B = OP we get "in order for > Ben's request to make sense, Ben has to assume that the OP is making > an effort to fragment the community". This assumption on the part of > Ben, I think, is hostile, since it assumes that the OP is making an > effort to do something not nice. Whether the OP is indeed doing > something not nice, is irrelevant. If the OP does do something not > nice, the hostility is warranted. If the OP is not doing anything not > nice, the hostility is unwarranted. But the fact that Ben was hostile > is a fact :)
You were doing fine until you brought in the hostility. I must agree with Ben that his comment was not hostile. It was merely a statement. Not an exclamation, no name calling, just a plain request rooted in reality.
And that's a fact. ;-)
Shall we now discuss the nature of the space/time continuum and the exact reality of quarks?
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:58:30 -0000, Daniel Fetchinson
<fetchin...@googlemail.com> wrote: > If yes, we are almost there! In our example the request of A only > makes sense if B is making an effort to fragment the community, in > other words, assuming that A tries to make a meaningful request, A is > assuming that B is making an effort to fragment the community.
You are assuming here that B is intending his efforts to do X, and that A believes this to be the case. That's the assumption where your chain of logic fails; it is entirely possible that A's statement is abridging a chain of logic that B hasn't considered, and that A is making no assumption of any kind concerning B's intent.
Say hello to the Law of Unintended Consequences.
-- Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses
>>>>"Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
>>>>This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the >>>>OP is fragmenting the community
>>>It presupposes nothing of any goal. It describes a predictable result of >>>the OP's efforts, and requests those efforts to cease.
>>>So I deny the characterisation of that request as hostile.
> [mass snippitude]
>> If yes, with the substitution A = Ben and B = OP we get "in order for >> Ben's request to make sense, Ben has to assume that the OP is making >> an effort to fragment the community". This assumption on the part of >> Ben, I think, is hostile, since it assumes that the OP is making an >> effort to do something not nice. Whether the OP is indeed doing >> something not nice, is irrelevant. If the OP does do something not >> nice, the hostility is warranted. If the OP is not doing anything not >> nice, the hostility is unwarranted. But the fact that Ben was hostile >> is a fact :)
> You were doing fine until you brought in the hostility. I must agree > with Ben that his comment was not hostile. It was merely a statement. > Not an exclamation, no name calling, just a plain request rooted in reality.
Okay, before we get to quarks let's see what 'hostile' means :)
1 a : of or relating to an enemy <hostile fire> b : marked by malevolence <a hostile act> c : openly opposed or resisting <a hostile critic> <hostile to new ideas> d (1) : not hospitable <plants growing in a hostile environment> (2) : having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature <a hostile workplace>
Now, I think the OP was perceived by Ben as doing something which he thinks is not good. We most probably agree on this. In other words, Ben was opposing the OP's ideas. Yet in other words, Ben was resisting the OP's ideas. And yet in other words, Ben was not hospitable. So perhaps 1a and 1b doesn't quite fit the bill since Ben didn't go as far as call the OP an enemy and he wasn't evil or wished harm to the OP, but 1c and d(1) are certainly correctly describing his behavior and to a lesser extent d(2) as well.
And the quarks...... :)
Cheers, Daniel
> And that's a fact. ;-)
> Shall we now discuss the nature of the space/time continuum and the > exact reality of quarks?
>>> I am proud to announce the release of Pyfora (http://pyfora.org), an >>> online community of Python enthusiasts to supplement comp.lang.python >>> and #python. While the site is small right now, please feel free to >>> register and post any questions or tips you may have.
>> I'll feel free to not even bookmark it. I'm sorry, but it is just a bad >> idea.
>> Your forum cannot (and should not) compete either with Python's official >> newsgroup, IRC channel and mailing list or with popular, well- made and >> well-frequented general programming sites like stackoverflow.com.
> Are you saying that now that comp.lang.python and stackoverflow exists, > there no more room in the world for any more Python forums?
Exactly.
> I think that's terrible.
Exactly.
> Saketh, would you care to give a brief explanation for sets your forum > apart from the existing Python forums, and why people should choose to > spend time there instead of (or as well as) the existing forums? What > advantages does it have?
Yes, this is about the right kind of response I think everybody deserves who puts energy/enthusiasm/effort/time into putting together a python-related forum.
>> It would be the Internet equivalent of looking for a poker tournament in >> a desert valley instead of driving half an hour less and going to Las >> Vegas: there are no incentives to choose your forum, except perhaps for >> isolationists who value being a big fish in a small pond over being part >> of a community.
> (Funny you mention Las Vegas -- it started off as a tiny little town in > the middle of the desert too.)
> How about avoiding the noise and obtrusive advertising and bright lights > of Las Vegas, the fakery, the "showmanship", the horrible fake pyramid > and has-been celebrities, the crowds, the tackiness, the high prices, the > bright lights that never turn off (Las Vegas is the brightest city on > Earth)... if you're interested in poker without all the mayonnaise, maybe > that poker tournament away from the tourists is exactly what you need.
> Personally, if I wanted to gamble, the last place I would go is any house > which had gold-plated taps in the bathrooms. That tells me the house's > percentage is *way* too high.
Daniel Fetchinson wrote: >>>>>I was referring to this comment by Ben:
>>>>>"Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
>>>>>This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the >>>>>OP is fragmenting the community
>>>>It presupposes nothing of any goal. It describes a predictable result of >>>>the OP's efforts, and requests those efforts to cease.
>>>>So I deny the characterisation of that request as hostile.
>>[mass snippitude]
>>>If yes, with the substitution A = Ben and B = OP we get "in order for >>>Ben's request to make sense, Ben has to assume that the OP is making >>>an effort to fragment the community". This assumption on the part of >>>Ben, I think, is hostile, since it assumes that the OP is making an >>>effort to do something not nice. Whether the OP is indeed doing >>>something not nice, is irrelevant. If the OP does do something not >>>nice, the hostility is warranted. If the OP is not doing anything not >>>nice, the hostility is unwarranted. But the fact that Ben was hostile >>>is a fact :)
>>You were doing fine until you brought in the hostility. I must agree >>with Ben that his comment was not hostile. It was merely a statement. >>Not an exclamation, no name calling, just a plain request rooted in reality.
> 1 a : of or relating to an enemy <hostile fire> > b : marked by malevolence <a hostile act> > c : openly opposed or resisting <a hostile critic> <hostile to new ideas> > d (1) : not hospitable <plants growing in a hostile environment> > (2) : having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature > <a hostile workplace>
> Now, I think the OP was perceived by Ben as doing something which he > thinks is not good. We most probably agree on this. In other words, > Ben was opposing the OP's ideas. Yet in other words, Ben was resisting > the OP's ideas. And yet in other words, Ben was not hospitable. So > perhaps 1a and 1b doesn't quite fit the bill since Ben didn't go as > far as call the OP an enemy and he wasn't evil or wished harm to the > OP, but 1c and d(1) are certainly correctly describing his behavior > and to a lesser extent d(2) as well.
AH hahahahahahah.
Okay, you got me. However, if we're going to start looking up the exact denotations of words to justify our remarks, surely we should also pay attention to the connotations? In normal, everyday speach the denotations of 'resisting' and 'opposed to' are very different from 'hostile' -- hence such phrases as 'resisting with hostility' and 'hostiley opposed to'.
In other words, I'll grant you the win of that hair, but I still would not characterize it as hostile. ;-)
>>Daniel Fetchinson <fetchin...@googlemail.com> writes: > >Probably this thread is going by far too far :) >Ben Finney [ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au] writes: > Agreed.
I was following this discussion first with curiosity and then with increasing disbelief. As a scientist and a programmer, I always considered myself belonging to a group of people who are broad-minded and task-oriented.
Being an occasional Python programmer, I subscribed to this list in the hopes of learning from the pros. Most of the time I do. But I also see a disturbing trend of petty bickering, splitting hairs and one-upmanship. I understand there will be occasional language slips and misconstrued jokes but can we please stick to the topic and remain courteous at all times? I am seriously considering unsubscribing from this UL (and maybe joining Pyfora.)
Valentina Boycheva wrote: > I was following this discussion first with curiosity and then with > increasing disbelief.
> So stop following it. Really.
> As a scientist and a programmer, I always > considered myself belonging to a group of people who are broad-minded > and task-oriented.
Ditto. I read python-list as the newgroup gmane.comp.python.general and only download the posts I select, which is well less than half, depending on my mood;-). -- which is to say, whether or not I am looking for time-wasting entertainment ;-)
> Being an occasional Python programmer, I subscribed to this list in the > hopes of learning from the pros. Most of the time I do. But I also see a > disturbing trend of petty bickering, splitting hairs and one-upmanship.
I have been reading for over 10 years and see no increasing trend. The worst times were definitely in the past.
> I understand there will be occasional language slips and misconstrued > jokes but can we please stick to the topic and remain courteous at all > times?
I completely agree, but have given up most admonishments ;-)
> I am seriously considering unsubscribing from this UL
That would be a shame.
> (and maybe joining Pyfora.)
That should be an independent decision. Most PHPBBS web forums I have seen are about the same or worse as far as civility.
> Being from germany, I can say that we *have* this fragmentation, and > frankly: I don't like it. I prefer my communication via NNTP/ML, and not > with those visually rather noisy and IMHO suboptimal forums. E.g. it
That's right... forums, although more "accessible" to all the people who can't/doesn't want to use specific email or nntp clients, are quite slow to use.
But I think Ubuntu forums support threads and are kind of "channeled" between ML and webinterface... something like Google Groups; I think THAT would be a good idea. What about trying to "channel" comp.lang.python and a forum?
-- Alan Franzoni contact me at public@[mysurname].eu
|
