Modifying Class Object
in [Python]
|
From: Steven D'Aprano on 12 Feb 2010 17:44 On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:26:24 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > Yes, I do count this as a personal attack and flaming. > > The litmus test for that is that it says something very negative about > the person you're debating with. As negative as accusing somebody of intentionally lying? Or is it only a personal attack when other people dare to disagree with Alf P. Steinbach? > In addition, your statement about the earlier attacks on me, is untrue, > and your implication that it's only about attacks on me, is untrue. Both > of which are very misleading, by the way. I'm assuming that you're > intentionally lying. Get over yourself. You're not so important that everyone is falling over themselves to discredit you by intentional lying. You do bring some technical knowledge and perspectives that is valuable to this community, but it comes with so much spikiness, near-paranoia and Freudian projection that it is extremely unpleasant dealing with you. Since you first came to this community, you have displayed a remarkable ability to take personal offence at virtually every disagreement, a deeply paranoid viewpoint that whenever somebody contradicts your statements they are deliberately lying, and a level of arrogance that is outstanding even for computer science. (How sure of yourself do you have to be to write a textbook for beginners in a language that you yourself are a self-professed beginner in?) I note with interest that this is not the only forum where your reaction to disagreement is to accuse others of deliberate lying. It is a habit of yours, and you've displayed it frequently and repeatedly. For example: http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/General/comp.programming/2006-08/msg00139.html http://www.embeddedrelated.com/usenet/embedded/show/43780-20.php http://groups.google.am/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_thread/thread/555331f8dd594837 I'm no longer willing to tolerate the unpleasant attitudes you display. So congratulations Alf. I've only kill-filed one other person on this newsgroup until now. You are now the second. I may reverse it some time in the future, but for now I'm just not interested in your paranoid accusations that others are lying about you and your continual misuse of the term "ad hominem" to refer to any and all criticism of your behaviour. *plonk* -- Steven
From: Alf P. Steinbach on 12 Feb 2010 18:47 * Steven D'Aprano: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:26:24 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > >> Yes, I do count this as a personal attack and flaming. >> >> The litmus test for that is that it says something very negative about >> the person you're debating with. > > As negative as accusing somebody of intentionally lying? > > Or is it only a personal attack when other people dare to disagree with > Alf P. Steinbach? Do you mean that everybody else is allowed to get personal, but I, in return, am not so allowed? >> In addition, your statement about the earlier attacks on me, is untrue, >> and your implication that it's only about attacks on me, is untrue. Both >> of which are very misleading, by the way. I'm assuming that you're >> intentionally lying. > > Get over yourself. You're not so important that everyone is falling over > themselves to discredit you by intentional lying. This implies something about my beliefs about my importance, that is, it is clearly intended as an ad hominem attack. I'm getting a bit tired of that. > You do bring some technical knowledge and perspectives that is valuable to > this community, but it comes with so much spikiness, near-paranoia and > Freudian projection that it is extremely unpleasant dealing with you. > > Since you first came to this community, you have displayed a remarkable > ability to take personal offence at virtually every disagreement, That is not true. I do take offense at pure personal attacks, though. Personal attacks are about person, technical discussion is about technical things. > a deeply paranoid viewpoint that whenever somebody contradicts your > statements they are deliberately lying, That's just stupid, sorry. Being paranoid is not about being attacked, or about pointing out when someone's lying. Hello. > and a level of arrogance that is > outstanding even for computer science. (How sure of yourself do you have > to be to write a textbook for beginners in a language that you yourself > are a self-professed beginner in?) > > I note with interest that this is not the only forum where your reaction > to disagreement is to accuse others of deliberate lying. Your argument gets a bit circular. > It is a habit of yours, That is untrue. > and you've displayed it frequently No, that is untrue. > and repeatedly. Yes, I have repeatedly pointed when people have been lying, citing the evidence and logic leading to that conclusion. I wouldn't just "accuse" someone of something like that. It's far too serious (however, above you're happy with accusing me of being paranoid and whatever, so I conclude that you have no such qualms). > For example: > > http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/General/comp.programming/2006-08/msg00139.html > > http://www.embeddedrelated.com/usenet/embedded/show/43780-20.php > > http://groups.google.am/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_thread/thread/555331f8dd594837 Yes, I've been on the net a long time, and consequently I have been involved in flame wars. :-)[1] That is no excuse for your behavior. An extremely long thread dedicated to the notion that there are no references in Python (which is blatantly false), coupled with personal attacks on the one person arguing that there are. I could easily think that you were having me on. Of course most anyone else who'd hold the rational opinion would not join the battlefield, because it clearly wasn't and isn't about convincing or educating anyone, but I feel that follow-ups to my articles should be answered. Cheers & hth., - Alf Notes: [1] Like one here where some guy A objects to some other guy B's use of the term "portable assembler" about C, where at first I try to defend B's point of view, since it is after all one employed even by the creators of C. B sensibly opts out of the discussion while I stay on, predictable result. Another flame war is with some functional programming fanatic, and a third with a known troll.
From: Steve Holden on 12 Feb 2010 19:45 Alf P. Steinbach wrote: [...] > Of course most anyone else who'd hold the > rational opinion would not join the battlefield, because it clearly > wasn't and isn't about convincing or educating anyone, but I feel that > follow-ups to my articles should be answered. > In other words, you must have the last word, a behavioral characteristic I will avoid drawing the obvious conclusions about for fear of begin accused (yet again) of making ad hominem attacks. I suppose you will therefore be unable to resist the temptation to respond to this. Though I'd love to be proved wrong again. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 PyCon is coming! Atlanta, Feb 2010 http://us.pycon.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/
From: rantingrick on 12 Feb 2010 21:23 This entire thread has imploded like a neutron star into an infantile debate that only Caddie Couric, Bill O Reilly, and everyone on PMS-NBC can hold a candle to! The only post i enjoyed was Steve Howes! From my unique perspective of not really knowing (or for that matter) really caring about any of you i can say *some* of you have most undoubly shown your true colors in this thread! First of all, we all know how D Aprano has such an unfettered ego problem. I myself have been the victom of his insults but simultaniously also found them quite enjoyable (at times) I'd classify Steven d'Aprano as a "well informed" arsehole with an inner clown trying to escape. Then there is "alex23". The only sockpuppet (of many suspects within this group) that i can 100 percent prove and of whom i knew sooner or later would come along for his chance at trolling. Just look at his GG cache and you will see 99% of his post are argmentitve, abusive trolls! He's a fish that waits for threads like these just so he can flop around! As for Alf, no he is not *tecnically* right about the definition of "ad homine" but that *really* doesn't matter. He has (time and time again) been personally attacked by some of the more "supposedly respected" people in this group. And as always the roaches start coming out of the woodwork in a most "pathetic puppy dog" way. What would you puppets do if there were no one to pull your strings? But the most nortoriuos behavior of all belongs to none other that the PSF chairman himself! Yes "Steve Holden", you should be ashamed of yourself! Your attacks have been more amd more destructive over the past year or so. Even if your behavoir could "somehow" be justified how can someone in your position lead the PSF and act as such an infintile way? I am very ashamed of you Steve and you really owe Alf (and the community at large) an apology although i doubt it will happen because then your own people will turn against you. I have documented the bad behavours of certain "pythonistas" on this group for some time now. And my original assumtions that only a handful of people really follow this group. Maybe one day we will have a fair playing feild for all but sadly it looks to be more like a pipe dream! Sleep well kids!
From: Aahz on 13 Feb 2010 10:31
In article <mailman.2323.1265836683.28905.python-list(a)python.org>, Steve Holden <steve(a)holdenweb.com> wrote: > >Whether in CPython, Jython or IronPython the value returned by calling >id(x) (whether x is a literal, a simple name or a more complex >expression) is absolutely no use as an accessor: it does not give you >access to the referenced value. > >If you disagree, please write (in any implementation you like: it need >not even be portable, though I can't imagine why ti wouldn't be) a >Python function which takes an id() value as its argument and returns >the value for which the id() value was provided. IIRC, I've seen ctypes code that uses id() to get access to the object, but (obviously) I don't think that invalidates your point[er]. -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "At Resolver we've found it useful to short-circuit any doubt and just refer to comments in code as 'lies'. :-)" |