Re:In Memoriam: Tim Peters 1952–2026
by cauch on Saturday November 14, 2026 @05:58AM
(#50495984)
> Not in any meaningful sense.
This is a very unfair way of treating the situation. What I had in mind was basically what you say after: Peters understands why the situation went this way (because newcomers were not used to his writing style) and acknowledge responsibility in not realising that earlier. His post is literally called "mea culpa". It is very very unfair to pretend that Peters does not recognise some part of responsibility in a post which contains so much language sending explicitly that message.
> But here's the thing: I first interacted ...
Well, what you say is not surprising and does not prove anything. In 99% of situations were people take offence or disagree, there are also people who are fine with it. And it would have been totally unrealistic to pretend that a style that people understood in a given period was misunderstood by 100% of the people just few years later. You were just part of the people who interpreted it as Peters intended. But I'm pretty sure that you interpreted things differently in other circumstances.
> If there's some legitimate reason why a morally good person could object to that post, I never heard it floated the entire time
Well, in Peters post, he says "So too many now read one of my typically part-joking posts, and think I’m making fun of the topic being discussed, or belittling them. Wholly unintended, but understandable, and I first realized that yesterday. Now it makes some sense to me how someone could take offense at my message about sexual harassment."
I think that the situation is simple and that Peters understands it while you don't. The message was incorrectly interpreted. Peters says here that in this case, the reaction was understandable and make some sense. Peters ended up understanding the whole mess that was basically just miscommunication.
On the opposite, in your message, you are basically saying that you cannot understand that someone would take offence. That's your opinion, and, after all, why not. But other people have other opinion. I hope you don't take offence of that :)
> (and people have accused me before of being unreasonably interested in that discussion)
Hm, do you think that it is not highlighting that what "looks just fine" according to you may not be an universal truth?
> Tim looks just fine "on that circumstance". It is his interlocutors who look completely unreasonable.
As I've said, his interlocutors look very bad. You may think Peters looks "just fine", but that does not mean Peters looks just fine. You are just one person. And, I know, "everyone who disagree on this is a social justice warrior and is wrong", but you cannot force other persons who wrote articles on Peters' passing to be bad or misguided because they don't agree with you on this detail.
This is a very unfair way of treating the situation. What I had in mind was basically what you say after: Peters understands why the situation went this way (because newcomers were not used to his writing style) and acknowledge responsibility in not realising that earlier. His post is literally called "mea culpa". It is very very unfair to pretend that Peters does not recognise some part of responsibility in a post which contains so much language sending explicitly that message.
> But here's the thing: I first interacted ...
Well, what you say is not surprising and does not prove anything. In 99% of situations were people take offence or disagree, there are also people who are fine with it. And it would have been totally unrealistic to pretend that a style that people understood in a given period was misunderstood by 100% of the people just few years later. You were just part of the people who interpreted it as Peters intended. But I'm pretty sure that you interpreted things differently in other circumstances.
> If there's some legitimate reason why a morally good person could object to that post, I never heard it floated the entire time
Well, in Peters post, he says "So too many now read one of my typically part-joking posts, and think I’m making fun of the topic being discussed, or belittling them. Wholly unintended, but understandable, and I first realized that yesterday. Now it makes some sense to me how someone could take offense at my message about sexual harassment."
I think that the situation is simple and that Peters understands it while you don't. The message was incorrectly interpreted. Peters says here that in this case, the reaction was understandable and make some sense. Peters ended up understanding the whole mess that was basically just miscommunication.
On the opposite, in your message, you are basically saying that you cannot understand that someone would take offence. That's your opinion, and, after all, why not. But other people have other opinion. I hope you don't take offence of that :)
> (and people have accused me before of being unreasonably interested in that discussion)
Hm, do you think that it is not highlighting that what "looks just fine" according to you may not be an universal truth?
> Tim looks just fine "on that circumstance". It is his interlocutors who look completely unreasonable.
As I've said, his interlocutors look very bad. You may think Peters looks "just fine", but that does not mean Peters looks just fine. You are just one person. And, I know, "everyone who disagree on this is a social justice warrior and is wrong", but you cannot force other persons who wrote articles on Peters' passing to be bad or misguided because they don't agree with you on this detail.