Need cleanup advice for multiline string

[Simon Forman]

Of the tens of thousands of Gods that people have invented, which is the
one we're supposed to believe in? I always forget which ones we're
supposed to dismiss as nonsense, and which one we're not.

Why the heck are you asking me? (I'd say "/you/ are the God you
should believe in.")

Okay, we're Unified in God. Great. What does that actually mean, really?
In the struggle to survive in a world of shortages, disease, natural
disasters and disputes between well-meaning but incompatible viewpoints
(to say nothing of the selfish and greedy), what practical difference
does it make?

It means (to me, at least) that underlying all the BS and misery
there's a reason to hope, a reality the transcends this squalid
mud-ball Earth, and can overcome it completely if tapped.

It's more than a symbol with meaning, Unity is a phenomenon that can
be lived, experienced. It can be practiced and deepened. Done well,
the practical difference it makes defies measurement.

(That's why calling folks on sexist behavior is important enough to
butt in on a thread on usenet with an OT reprimand. IMHO)

Regards,
~Simon

 

[Simon Forman]

It seems odd, for someone who cites religious intolerance as a problem,
to then assert an extremely divisive religious idea.

Well, I did say, "(as I would put it)" to try to cushion the blow.

We're all unified by our humanity. Bringing any god into the picture is
surely counter to any goals of unity.

Unity "in humanity" is, to my way of thinking, the same as Unity "in
God". I think Unity, like None, is a built-in singleton, so to speak.

Agreed.

<3

 

[Carl Banks]

Demonstrable facts, by nature of being independently verifiable, are a
better point of unification than comforting illusions, however
confidently asserted.

You know, if you're going to escalate a budding flame war the least
you could do is to choose to do it some other way than by following up
to an obvious joke, probably one designed to diffuse the ill-feeling.


Carl Banks

 

[Mensanator]

"Guy" is an old English name, related to the old French name "Gy" and
Italian "Guido". It's originally derived from the Old German for "wood"
or "warrior".

After Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the English Parliament house, and was
executed, the British government encouraged people to burn effigies of
him. These became known as "guys", which eventually became slang for an
ugly man, which later became slang for any man, and in recent years, any
person.

So the irony is that the friendly term "guys", referring to a group of
people, is derived from the name of an 18th century

You're off by at least a century.

religious terrorist.

As were all members of parliament including the king.

One can only wonder whether in 200 years time people will walk into the
office and say "Hey you osamas, they're giving away free donuts down
stairs, anyone want some?"

<joke>

Q: What's white and flies across the ocean?

A: Lord Mountbatten's tennis shoes.

</joke>

Ain't so fuckin' funny, is it?
(Unless you're Irish, in which case it's hysterical).

 

[Mensanator]

The irony that in being friendly that you're calling someone a
terrorist. �

People of Irish Catholic heritage find that extremely offensive,
like asking how many Jews you can fit into a Volswagen.

I guess I shouldn't have expected you to get it.

Oh, I got it alright, moreso than you could possibly
imagine.

My dictionary disagrees with you.

hen yor dictionary is wrong. Or, more likely, you have
comprehension problems. People have been named "Guy"
for centuries prior to Mr. Fawkes.

Try reading my whole post before shouting your mouth off.

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

Kinda why I mentioned it. Duh.

 

[Mensanator]

I didn't get Carl's reference. The only thing I know about blowing the
parliament is from the movie V for Vendetta (no comment please !).
Now thanks to your link:
"In 18th-century England, the term "guy" was used to refer to an effigy
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effigy> of Fawkes, which would be paraded
around town by children on the anniversary of the conspiracy"

Well, my knowledge is much too low to get this kind of reference from
the start. :-/

So I guess you have no clue WHY Mr. Fawkes would want
to blow up the parliment and assassinate the king.
Read up a bit on how just how the Church of England
came to be and it will be quite obvious.

On some TV show, someone did a re-creation of that event
to see what would have happened had he not gotten caught.
They built a life-size mockuup of the room under which
the gunpowder kegs were stashed and filled the room
with dummys. The blast was spectacular. They eventually
found the head of the dummy representing king James a
couple miles away. Or maybe it was kilometers. Either way,
the conclusion was it was very lucky to have worked out
the way it did.

 

[Hendrik van Rooyen]

Yes

Thank you that clears it up.



- Hendrik

 

[Jean-Michel Pichavant]

You mean the single greatest cause of human misery isn't
Microsoft Windows?

No, emacs is responsible ! Hail to Vi !

JM

 

[Jean-Michel Pichavant]

Why the heck are you asking me? (I'd say "/you/ are the God you
should believe in.")

Steven, a God... funny )

No the only God we should surely worship is Guido, our BDFL :bow:. That
is not questionable, and those who dare will be hung by the balls. (In
order to be fairly cruel we should find an appropriate torture for our
ladies, I don't want to be tagged as sexist).

JM

 

[Aahz]

I didn't get Carl's reference. The only thing I know about blowing the
parliament is from the movie V for Vendetta (no comment please !).

You should read the original comic book, it's much more interesting (and
clearly mentions the Guy Fawkes connection).

 

[Simon Forman]

Then you're playing Humpty-Dumpty games with words. You know very well
that “God” has established meanings entirely different from “humanity”,
and those meanings played a part in your choice of that word.

I maintain that you can't consistently make a declaration in favour of
human unity and unfounded religious assertions.


This is white noise.



I think we can peaceably leave it at that.

Hear hear!

(FWIW, I've always admired Humpty Dumpty's attitude to words. Have
you ever read R.A. Wilson's "Quantum Psychology"?)

Regards,
~Simon

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

(FWIW, I've always admired Humpty Dumpty's attitude to words.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

When you say "admired", do you mean what the rest of us understand by
"admired", or something completely different?

How about "always", "attitude", "to" and "words"?

For all I know, you're talking about baking a birthday cake for your cat,
by which I mean shaving off all your hair, and by "hair" I mean "lunch"
and by "shaving off" I mean "eating".

Have you
ever read R.A. Wilson's "Quantum Psychology"?)

Perhaps I have, perhaps I haven't, it depends on who asks first.

 

[Cameron Laird]

.
.
.

Grace Hopper. The saying "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to
get permission" is attributed to her.

.
.
.
SEVERAL women, including Hopper, Holbertson, Countess Lovelace,
Sammet, and Liskov, all advanced early compiler theory and practice;
I can make a case for at least the first three of these as having
written "the first compiler".

This thread has surprised me: it gives more of an impression
than I expected that a significant portion of practitioners
sincerely believe that "women don't do computers". Abundant
resources are available to those who choose to pursue the facts;
<URL: http://www.indwes.edu/Faculty/bcupp/lookback/hist-10.htm >
and <URL: http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/past-women-cs.html >
are accessible starting points.

Incidentally, I feel particularly ignorant myself about contri-
butions from Eastern Europe during 1950-1970, say; if I just
wanted to accumulate debating points, I'd look there.

 

[Stefan Behnel]

2009/8/11 Robert Dailey:

Give the attitudes still prevalent in our industry (cf
<http://tinyurl.com/c5nqju> and many more), I'm sorry to say that I
don't think this is funny.

Me neither.

I used to reply with comments like "you just missed more than half of the
world's population" to people who started their postings with "hi guys!",
and I stopped doing that as a) it became too tiring, especially on a
potentially-for-newbees group like c.l.py, and b) to many people it
actually *is* a figure of speech.

But reading statements like the above really makes me feel that it's best
to comment even on simple things like "hi guys!".

Stefan

 

[Stefan Behnel]

No, emacs is responsible ! Hail to Vi !

Heck, where's Godwin's law when you need it?

Stefan

 

[Stefan Behnel]

asking how many Jews you can fit into a Volswagen.

None, because it's already full.

(or "voll" as those who design Volkswagens would put it...)

Stefan

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Me neither.

I used to reply with comments like "you just missed more than half of
the world's population" to people who started their postings with "hi
guys!",

If you start your post with "Hi guys", you've missed more than EIGHTY
percent of the world's population, namely the 5.5 to 6 billion people who
speak no English. To say nothing of the 99.9% of the world's population
who couldn't help you with your query, even if they spoke English, and
even if they were on the Internet.

In that case, missing out on the small percentage of English-speaking
women who don't know that "guys" has become sexless probably doesn't
matter.

(I'm amused and somewhat perplexed that somebody with the non-English
name of Stefan, writing from a .de email address, seems to be assuming
that (1) everybody is on the Internet, and (2) everybody on the Internet
speaks English. Awareness of sexism is a good thing, but so is awareness
of cultural chauvinism.)

and I stopped doing that as a) it became too tiring, especially
on a potentially-for-newbees group like c.l.py, and b) to many people it
actually *is* a figure of speech.

But reading statements like the above really makes me feel that it's
best to comment even on simple things like "hi guys!".

Or you could enter the 21 century and understand that "guys" has become a
generic term for people of any sex.

 

[Mensanator]

None, because it's already full.

A spelling error does not make it any less offensive.

 

[Stefan Behnel]

I'm amused and somewhat perplexed that somebody with the non-English
name of Stefan, writing from a .de email address, seems to be assuming
that (1) everybody is on the Internet, and (2) everybody on the Internet
speaks English.

Oh, I totally don't. But most people who read c.l.py do at least understand
it to a certain extent. I don't commonly read /that/ many
non-english-speaking Python forums thoroughly enough to assume that the OP
posted the question only in English and only in c.l.py. I don't even assume
that he only posted that question to an Internet newsgroup. You know,
there's real-life, too.

Or you could enter the 21 century and understand that "guys" has become a
generic term for people of any sex.

Is that true for everyone who understands and/or writes English? In that
case, I'm fine with your above statement. Otherwise, I'd wonder who you
meant with the term "cultural chauvinism". So far, I only learned that most
North-American English native speakers use that term in the way you refer
to. That doesn't even get you close to the majority of English speakers.

Stefan

 

[Stefan Behnel]

A spelling error does not make it any less offensive.

As it stands, I find the joke above perfectly acceptable. Using the word
"Jew" in a joke doesn't make it anti-semitic by default.

Stefan