«

On Aug 17, 8:44*am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> In article <461cc6f1-fc23-4bc7-a719-6f29babf8...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups..com>,
> Robert Dailey *<rcdai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >It's a figure of speech. And besides, why would I want programming
> >advice from a woman? lol. Thanks for the help.
>
> Well, I'm sorry to see this, it means I was wrong about the lack of
> sexism in the Python community.

Oh come on, one newbie making an off-color joke is not any sort of
reflection of the community as a whole.

Anyway it's pretty naive to expect what is now a large community to
avoid bad eggs altogether. Price you pay for popularity.


Carl Banks

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Carl Banks<> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 8:44Â*am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
>> In article <461cc6f1-fc23-4bc7-a719-6f29babf8...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Dailey Â*<rcdai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >It's a figure of speech. And besides, why would I want programming
>> >advice from a woman? lol. Thanks for the help.
>>
>> Well, I'm sorry to see this, it means I was wrong about the lack of
>> sexism in the Python community.
>
> Oh come on, one newbie making an off-color joke is not any sort of
> reflection of the community as a whole.
>
> Anyway it's pretty naive to expect what is now a large community to
> avoid bad eggs altogether. Â*Price you pay for popularity.

Agreed on both points, but the lack of any reprimanding for making
said inappropriate joke /would/ reflect badly on the community.
Fortunately, said person's behavior has now been condemned by virtue
of this thread; it's a step in the right direction.

Cheers,
Chris

On Aug 12, 6:52*am, Robert Dailey <rcdai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 3:40*pm, Bearophile <bearophileH...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Dailey:
>
> > > This breaks the flow of scope. Would you guys solve this
> > > problem by moving failMsg into global scope?
> > > Perhaps through some other type of syntax?
>
> > There are gals too here.
> > This may help:http://docs.python.org/library/textw...extwrap.dedent
>
> > Bye,
> > bearophile
>
> It's a figure of speech. And besides, why would I want programming
> advice from a woman? lol. Thanks for the help.

Please consider having an attitude transplant.

On Aug 17, 4:06*pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 10:03*am, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmic...@sequans.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm no English native, but I already heard women/men referring to a
> > group as "guys", no matter that group gender configuration. It's even
> > used for group composed exclusively of women. Moreover it looks like a
> > *very* friendly form, so there is really nothing to worry about it.
>
> I like how being very friendly means calling people after a guy who
> tried to blow up the English Parliament.

So?

>
> Carl Banks

On Aug 17, 5:40*pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 4:06*pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 17, 10:03*am, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmic...@sequans.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I'm no English native, but I already heard women/men referring to a
> > > group as "guys", no matter that group gender configuration. It's even
> > > used for group composed exclusively of women. Moreover it looks like a
> > > *very* friendly form, so there is really nothing to worry about it.
>
> > I like how being very friendly means calling people after a guy who
> > tried to blow up the English Parliament.
>
> So?

I also like how making an amusing pointless observation gets people
all huffy.

(BTW, lest anyone is not aware, that is the origin of the word "guy",
this was not some random association.)

Carl Banks

On Aug 17, 8:04�pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 5:40�pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 17, 4:06�pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 17, 10:03�am, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmic...@sequans.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I'm no English native, but I already heard women/men referring to a
> > > > group as "guys", no matter that group gender configuration. It's even
> > > > used for group composed exclusively of women. Moreover it looks like a
> > > > *very* friendly form, so there is really nothing to worry about it.
>
> > > I like how being very friendly means calling people after a guy who
> > > tried to blow up the English Parliament.
>
> > So?
>
> I also like how making an amusing pointless observation

Pointless, yes, but what was amusing abot the observation?

> gets people all huffy.

That wasn't huffy. You want to see huffy, make a wisecrack
comparing mothballs to Zyklon B, you'll REALLY get a load
of huffy replies.

>
> (BTW, lest anyone is not aware, that is the origin of the word "guy",

It most certainly is not. Maybe the origin of that
word's useage as a genric reference to a male, but
you didn't say that.

> this was not some random association.)

Penny for the guy?

>
> Carl Banks

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:31:51 -0700, Chris Rebert wrote:

>> Oh come on, one newbie making an off-color joke is not any sort of
>> reflection of the community as a whole.
>>
>> Anyway it's pretty naive to expect what is now a large community to
>> avoid bad eggs altogether. Â*Price you pay for popularity.
>
> Agreed on both points, but the lack of any reprimanding for making said
> inappropriate joke /would/ reflect badly on the community. Fortunately,
> said person's behavior has now been condemned by virtue of this thread;
> it's a step in the right direction.

Pardon me, but he has been slapped, a number of times. Check the original
thread, you'll see that the OP was slapped for his stupid joke, then
slapped again for another dismissive comment after the first reprimand.

You might argue he wasn't slapped *enough*, but that's another story.
Personally, I thought he was either trolling for a reaction, or he was an
old-fuddy-duddy (regardless of biological age), and either way reacting
to his comments would just draw attention to something which is best
dealt with with a cold-shoulder. Reinforce the good behaviour, shun the
bad.

The comments were made a week ago -- why the sudden flurry of attention?



--
Steven

On Aug 17, 8:49*pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 8:04 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 5:40 pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 17, 4:06 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 17, 10:03 am, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmic...@sequans.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm no English native, but I already heard women/men referring to a
> > > > > group as "guys", no matter that group gender configuration. It's even
> > > > > used for group composed exclusively of women. Moreover it looks like a
> > > > > *very* friendly form, so there is really nothing to worry about it.
>
> > > > I like how being very friendly means calling people after a guy who
> > > > tried to blow up the English Parliament.
>
> > > So?
>
> > I also like how making an amusing pointless observation
>
> Pointless, yes, but what was amusing abot the observation?

The irony that in being friendly that you're calling someone a
terrorist. I guess I shouldn't have expected you to get it.


> > gets people all huffy.
>
> That wasn't huffy. You want to see huffy, make a wisecrack
> comparing mothballs to Zyklon B, you'll REALLY get a load
> of huffy replies.
>
> > (BTW, lest anyone is not aware, that is the origin of the word "guy",
>
> It most certainly is not.

My dictionary disagrees with you.


> Maybe the origin of that
> word's useage as a genric reference to a male, but
> you didn't say that.
>
> > this was not some random association.)
>
> Penny for the guy?

Probably that phrase was part of the word's gradual common adoption.


Carl Banks

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:04:58 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:

> On Aug 17, 5:40Â*pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 4:06Â*pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 17, 10:03Â*am, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmic...@sequans.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > I'm no English native, but I already heard women/men referring to a
>> > > group as "guys", no matter that group gender configuration. It's
>> > > even used for group composed exclusively of women. Moreover it
>> > > looks like a *very* friendly form, so there is really nothing to
>> > > worry about it.
>>
>> > I like how being very friendly means calling people after a guy who
>> > tried to blow up the English Parliament.
>>
>> So?
>
> I also like how making an amusing pointless observation gets people all
> huffy.
>
> (BTW, lest anyone is not aware, that is the origin of the word "guy",
> this was not some random association.)


Yes, apparently the slang term "guy" for "man" (and these days, "person")
was derived from Guy Fawkes:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-guy1.htm


but the name itself is much older, and comes from Old German for "wood"
or "warrior". In old French, it was "Gy", and in Italian (and presumably
Dutch) it is "Guido".

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Guy
http://www.blurtit.com/q113276.html


You'll also note that "guy" the noun has a number of meanings:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=guy


I don't know if there's any point to all this, but it's interesting, even
if off-topic.




--
Steven

In article < om.au>,
Steven D'Aprano <> wrote:
>
>The comments were made a week ago -- why the sudden flurry of attention?

Mainly an opportunity to flog the new diversity list.
--
Aahz () <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"I saw `cout' being shifted "Hello world" times to the left and stopped
right there." --Steve Gonedes