On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:58:53 -0400, Ross Ridge wrote: > How does that in anyway justify Evan Driscoll maliciously lying about > code he's never seen?
You are perfectly justified to complain about Evan making sweeping generalisations about your code when he has not seen it; you are NOT justified in making your own sweeping generalisations that he is not just lying but *maliciously* lying. He might be just confused by the strength of his emotions and so making an honest mistake. Or he might have guessed perfectly accurately about your code, and you are the one being dishonest. Who knows? Evan's impassioned rant is based on his estimate of your mindset, namely that you are the sort of developer who writes code making assumptions about implementation details even when explicitly told not to by the library authors. I have no idea whether Evan's estimate is right or not, but I don't think it is justified based on the little amount we've seen of you. Your reaction is to make an equally unjustified estimate of Evan's mindset, namely that he is not just wrong about you, but *deliberately and maliciously* lying about you in the full knowledge that he is wrong. If anything, I would say that you have less justification for calling Evan a malicious liar than he has for calling you the sort of person who would write to an implementation instead of an interface. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
