Op 16-09-13 10:19, Chris Angelico schreef: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Antoon Pardon > <antoon.par...@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: >> Op 16-09-13 09:46, Chris Angelico schreef: >>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Antoon Pardon >>> <antoon.par...@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: >>>> instead of showing us all that you >>>> too can contribute in a careless manner? >>> >>> Also: It takes effort to contribute usefully in a way that looks >>> careless :) It's not saving effort, it's making a point. >> >> So what? The end result is still a contribution that looks like >> it was carelessly written. > > It's a contribution that SAYS that it looks carelessly written. I > think most people here are intelligent enough to know that that's > different from actual carelessness.
The question is, should they care about that difference. The end result is a contribution that is just as hard to read. >> Do you think making a point is an end that justifies any kind of >> means? If not why do you argue in a way that suggest just that. >> If yes, does that mean baiting Nikos is all right if it makes >> a point, or responding somewhat obnoxious to him? > > In a debate, you make points and counterpoints. In most debates, you > also gain (or lose) "points for style". Steven scored plenty of the > latter IMO. And why should we accept you as the arbiter for this? > You're here making a straw-man and a false dichotomy; I > believe that "making a point" is sufficient justification for what > Steven and I did, but I don't think it justifies "any kind of means". Then your argument was incomplete, because it just mentioned making a point as if that in itself was sufficient. > I would not, for instance, destroy Nikos's server, data, or access to > either, to make a point; and history will confirm this. No it doesn't. -- Antoon Pardon -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list