On 11/25/13 10:33 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:> On Monday, November 25, 2013 2:10:04 PM UTC-6, Ned Batchelder wrote: >> Let's please avoid veering off into rants about language >> and philosophy now. > > Hello Ned. I respect the fact that you want to keep threads > on-topic, and i greatly appreciate the humbleness of your > request. > > However, i feel as though i am being unfairly treated when > other people (who shall remain unnamed) started the > discussion in an off-topic direction long before i chimed > in. > > And to be fair, i was merely retorting a hasty assertion by > our friend Steven. Yes, i might have gotten a bit > philosophical in the process, but the reply itself was > germane to the sub-topic that Steven propagated up.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I don't mean to single you out. Threads that get too far off-track are rarely identified at the actual point they left the arena. Usually it isn't until they are clearly outside, and far enough outside that they aren't coming back, that a comment is made. In particular, I chose to comment on yours because it had a combination of non-Pythonness, strong language, and no clear markers of satire. > Furthermore, I don't believe that applying ridged rules of > topicality are to the benefit of anyone. Conversations of > any topic are destined to spin-off in many seemingly > unrelated directions -- and this is healthy! I agree. > As a spectator (or a participant) you can choose to stop > listening (or participating) at anytime the conversation > becomes uninteresting to you. True, but that attitude taken to the extreme is, "anything goes, and if you are only interested in Python, then only read the xx% of messages that are about Python." We also need the list to have a purpose (Python) and a tone (welcoming). When posts or threads stray too far on both, I start to get concerned. > Some of the greatest debates that i have participated > in (those that result in epiphany or even catharsis) had > initially sprung out of seemingly unrelated subject matters > which slowly built to a crescendo of maximum intensity. > > I don't think we should attempt to restrict debate since it > is this very debate that results in evolution of not only > the participants, but also the spectators. Again, thanks for your thoughtful approach to this, and also for using only one exclamation point, and no all-caps. :) --Ned. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
