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.
Okay, before we get to quarks let's see what 'hostile' means :)
From Merriam-Webster http://www.learnersdictionary.net/dictionary/hostile :
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. ;-)
~Ethan~
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
