Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 03-11-13 06:17, Steven D'Aprano schreef:

]

Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
that you're both on the same side here.

Thanks for the comments Joshua, but I'm afraid I cannot agree. I gave it
a lot of thought and I cannot continue to give Rurpy the presumption of
good faith any longer. This saddens me, but that's the way it is.

Why can't you? I think you should give Rurpy more credit. If you want
this to make a welcoming community, then you should take such remarks
seriously. You should realise that you are not in a good position to
evaluate how your words come accross because you rely on the knowledge
of your intentions. Others who don't know your intentions can reasonably
get a very different understanding of what you intended.

I'm trying hard to give up threads like this, where people debate the
subjective tone of an email and ever more pedantic arguments about the
precise wording. Even when all participants are arguing in good faith,
they risk becoming quagmires which go nowhere in dozens of posts.

So it seems you want this to be a welcoming community, as long as we don't
propose you to change your own behaviour. As soon as it is suggested you may
have to adapt your own behaviour in order to make this a welcoming community,
threads where this sort of things are discusseed in, no longer appeal to
you?

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 03-11-13 23:11, Ben Finney schreef:

We aim to be a community that always welcomes diversity of people. This
does not entail always welcoming bad behaviour.

But the question was whether some behaviour of steve himself was
contributing or in conflict with his aim.

Steven is aiming to change his behaviour to make the community more
welcoming of people: he is aiming to cease contributing to threads where
the bad behaviour is an interminable discussion of tone and pedantry.
This is, as I see it, wholly compatible with making the community more
welcoming to people, by reducing the volume of such threads.

Sorry but from my side that sounds awefully convenient. When the
behaviour of others is questionable, they undermine the welcoming
atmosphere of the community. When Steves behaviour is questionable the
others are behaving badly by discussing tone and pedantry.

This is a typical: "Heads, I win, Tail, you lose" situation that is
being set up.

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 04-11-13 10:07, Ben Finney schreef:

If you see a discussion as a zero-sum game – like a coin toss, where one
person's win can only be at the expense of someone else's loss – then I
fear this isn't going to be productive.

I don't see it that way. My point is that Steve seems to work hard
creating the impression that he does see it that way. My impression
is that Steve is not that much interrested in a welcoming group as
he is interrested in a group where he himself feels at ease. Where
the two coincide, he argues for a welcoming group. Where the two
may be in conflict, he is more interested in defending his behaviour
or brushing it of than he is in contributing to a welcoming group.

Suffice it to say that any number of parties can be behaving badly in a
discussion. If one person declares their choice not to continue an
unhelpful discussion, that does does not mean that they declare victory,
nor that they declare defeat. Discussions that are about “winning†or
“losing†the discussion are pretty futile in this forum anyway.

Unhelpful for whom? My thought is that a welcoming group is able to
resolve or a least discuss conflicts. If you declare the discussion
not helpful and see that as a reason not to continue with it, you
are IMO not contributing to such a group. With the numerous times
Steve told the rest about how he wants a welcoming group, he doesn't
seem that much interrested in actually doing an effort himself.