On 2 July 2013 08:22, Antoon Pardon <antoon.par...@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: > Op 01-07-13 21:28, Joshua Landau schreef: > >> Well then you are wrong. But fine, I'll use your definition incorrect >> as it may be (when talking to you, please don't misrepresent my other >> posts). >> >> Nevertheless, these statements that we are talking about, that I shall >> now term "pseudo-insults", are unwanted and not called for. Please >> keep them off-list. > This doesn't make sense. This means that someone can behave like a jerk > on this list, later tries to spin his behaviour as some innocent exchange > of ideas and make it near impossible for others to make it clear what > bullshit he is peddling because stating clearly how much like a jerk he > > behaved would be insulting. This is giving those who are behaving badly > > a huge advantage.
No it does not. I'd give you more of a counter but I actually have no idea how you came up with that. >>> Well nobody is representing the list. So where does that leave us? >> I am afraid you are wrong. The body of people of this list, as a >> whole, represent this list. As a whole, as I have shown, they resent >> your pseudo-insults. rusi is an exception, who only seems to resent >> Nikos's, but rusi has not fallen to pseudo-insults himself (herself?). > You have shown no such thing. You have shown some people who resent > my speaking clearly. I'd prefer you use my less ambiguous term "pseudo-insults". If you'd prefer, you can rename it. Using weasel-words helps nobody. I have no problem with you "speaking clearly" in a literal sense. I have a problem with your pseudo-insults. If you want to use "speaking clearly" to mean "pseudo-insult", you're going to have to point out that you're using words how they're not literally intended. > That doesn't mean much, those that resent > something are always making more noise than those who don't care or > would even prefer it that way. Only the people, no - person, making most noise is you. So you've sort-a countered your point. Sort of. But it's hard to counter a point that is basically just "well, despite the fact no-one supports my view there might be other silent people who do". > But for your ease of mind I'll make it clear I have no intention > of haunting Nikos or of keeping him the subject of discussion. > But should I stumble on a conversation in which his past behaviour > is framed as him being innocentltly asking questions, I will point > of what bullshit that is. Fair enough. If that's all you did in this thread, then I wouldn't care. But once again you seem to have missed the point that I and others keep reiterating: pseudo-insults have no place on this list. (If you need a reminder, pseudo-insults are just what other people term "insults". You can change the name if you see fit.) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
