> I skimmed much of "https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed...", and all the

> I skimmed much of "https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed https://discuss.python.org/t/for-your-consideration-proposed...", and all the Tim Peters comments I saw so far reflected pretty well on him. I read most of it,twice. I almost agreed with Peter's after the first skim, but on reading the second time, I do think use a lot of rethorical stratagems/fallacies (he isn't the only one but the fact that he posted a lot does not help, and the use of the 'slippery slope' argument in like his 3rd post is a killer) so i now tend to distrust his good faith. The 'arguments' he use are fairly anecdotal, and now I think he's mostly wrong and a touch too adversarial. I think the Bennet guy made far better arguments (and that's frm someone who don't know/think anything about the overall situation). Overall, I don't think Tim Peters is a bad guy (tm), I think he has been mischaracterized/misunderstood, but his position was mostly wrong and he was a bit too active, which made him seem adversarial/trollish, which did not help. Also, clearly bad faith arguments are cheap and makes me dislike you when I fell for it (which I did). Banning for that is a bit much, but I understand my sensitivity is not the rule (but it should be :)). P.S: Re-reading that made me feel like I'm part of the 'lesswrong' community. I'm not, but I see why checking the use of rethorical fallacies is useful.