On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 3:13:12 PM UTC-6, Mario Figueiredo wrote: > In article <12d74fb6-f7d7-4ff0-88d3-6076a5dc7...@googlegroups.com>, > Sir Richard Johnson The First says... > > > > Injecting polarity into debates is dangerous, because, > > then we get off into the emotional weeds and a solution > > may never be found -- just observe the polarization of > > American politics if you don't believe me --> *PUKE* > > I agree entirely. But you have to excuse me... weren't you > the one calling Guido lapdog (you used worse names) to > anyone who agreed with the PEP? ;)
I was not calling *ANYONE* who agreed with the PEP "a lapdog", my statement was more specific. I called Chris a "lapdog of" and a "rabbid fanboy" -- Guido was merely the "implied Satan". Of course i'm not suggesting that Guido is a malevolent godlike being, his inclusion in the expression is merely a incidental result of Chris's idol worship of "everything Guido". Although, to be fair, I guess i may have embellished a bit by using the word "rabbid", and for that i apologize. But to respond to your assertion that i'm being hypocritical: nonsense. Stating facts is *NEVER* hypocritical. Just because a fact happens to be an "inconvenient truth" does not invalidate it's truthfulness. Chris (or anybody for that matter) can choose to be a free thinking individual, or a brainwashed disciple, the choice is his. Even intelligent people (like Chris) can fall under the spell of a "implicit cult of personality". -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
