On 12/25/2013 05:19 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote: > On 12/24/13 8:47 PM, ru...@yahoo.com wrote: >> On 12/23/2013 09:12 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: >>> Also, >>> you haven't answered the other part of the post, the more important >>> part. >> Refresh my memory please. > > Ugh, stop!
Stop what? The context you quote has nothing to do with what you write below. > We get it: you don't think Google Groups is bad. That's not accurate. I would never characterize GG with such simplistic terms as "good" or "bad". > Or you > think it can be made to work, My own posts demonstrate that. You don't agree? Why would you question that I think so? > or something. "or something"? In other words you *don't* get it. > That's fine. But you are > going to have to reason a little more subtly than, "all software has bugs." I have tried to, both in the previous posts and in posts going back any months. Either I have failed to make myself clear or (more likely since you (et.al.) consistently cut out context and fail to respond directly to what I wrote) you choose not to understand. > As Chris has pointed out, the bugs in Google Groups affect every reader > of the list. Bugs in other software don't, at least not to the same extent. I understand that. But (a hypothetical) *I* have to make a tradeoff between the features/misfeatures of GG vs TB or any other software. You assume that the negative value you assign to GG apply to me. Wrong. While I understand (for example) that the FU'd quoting is annoying, I don't see why you can't just ignore it or skip reading my entire post if necessary. (The non-hypothetical I actually almost never reads quoted stuff anyway -- I only do so rarely when my memory and the main message leaving me unclear about something -- and even then it is often easier to go back to the OP given the spotty quality of quote trimming, as you demonstrate.) And (as I pointed out, multiple times) you fail to evaluate as positively as (hypothetical again) I do the benefits GG has for me. (Evidence: Chris' erroneous insistence that subscribing to the email list is as easy as using GG.) So my evaluation of the overall benefit/cost for GG relative to some other choice is still positive even though your evaluation is otherwise. And I distrust your evaluation anyway since I *know* (from personal experience that GG is easier to use for me than a mailing list) that part of your evaluation is wrong. What you are saying is that I should use *your* evaluation of GG (and other options) in making my tradeoffs. And you get very angry when I won't do what you tell me to. Secondly, the above is a side issue. Please go back and reread the posts in question. The main point (which you and Chris lost or did a good job misdirecting away from) is that Chris claimed (and you found reasonable to believe) that GG corrupts white space in posts. I have not seen any such effect, Chris' explanations were all handwaving, and so pending something more convincing I will offer the alternate explanation that it is just more unjustified disparagement of GG and that it constitutes evidence that much of this anti-GG sentiment is driven by a "Lord of the Flies" effect rather than rationality. > Rurpy, you seem to be willfully ignoring the aggravation people are > experiencing. "willfully ignoring"? For someone portraying himself as a voice of reason in this discuss that's a pretty sleezy thing to say. I'll point out I put a small but significant amount of work into a wiki page to try to help reduce the aggravation people are experiencing which is more than you or Chris have done. > And people who hate Google Groups: you seem to be > overlooking the fact that it's difficult for the users of Google Groups > to understand its flaws, or to see the effect it has on the list. And in my opinion, overreacting to GG annoyances. Despite claims to the contrary, reading GG posts *will not* make you go blind, and they *can* be easily skipped if too annoying. And from comments posted here, there are people who find these incessant GG discussions (and frequent troll baiting) far more annoying than posts from GG. > I'll repeat my proposal (for everyone): > > 1) Don't fault newcomers for using Google Groups. Politely suggest > alternatives, but only if you are also helping them, or if they have > already gotten help. > > 2) Be careful how you rail against Google Groups. When you call its > results "crap" (for example), it can sound like an insult to the poster. > You mean to refer to Google Groups, but remember you are also > referring to the poster's words. > > 3) Don't let's get into protracted internal debates about Google Groups. > It is for the moment at least, an unavoidable part of this list. > > Do you disagree? OK I give up. You never even bothered to read what you're responding to. I specifically wrote regarding the above, immediately following where you wrote the above: >> That all sounds fine [...] When you want to reply to what I wrote rather than what you want to believe, we can restart this conversation. (And no, I don't read your question as directed at "everyone" since you would have, given my response, specifically excluded me if you'd meant that.) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
