lol I know exactly who you are b9 and I've been around about as long as you as well

Yes you are correct, I appear to have taken the definition from 'maltreatment' (wrong tab in my browser), my mistake.

I would argue that the use of 'mistreat' in this context strongly implies abuse (go to Wikipedia and search for 'mistreat') which in turn implies intent or gross neglect, neither of which appear to have been a factor because otherwise we would be hearing of this as it was dragged through the New Zealand court system.

No, there you go exaggerating and putting words in other people's mouths again (by the way random and coincidental are redundant terms in this context so you only needed to use one of them). Nowhere did anyone mention that all the animals died for the same reason. In fact nowhere did I even say the deaths were legitimate, just that the SPCA investigated and found no evidence of cruelty. In fact I never even mentioned anything about 27 animals, so no, I did not 'say that' (and if you really want to get picky I am happy to debate you about the figure of 27 as well).

What many people appear to have done in this story is to cherry pick parts of stories and throw emotionally charged and blatantly incorrect words around. The definition of the word 'mistreat' states that abuse was intentional which is does not appear to be the case so no wonder Jackson denied it. If anything the production company is possibly guilty of not being rigorous enough with their investigations into the animal housing (and from the sound of it they were pretty rigorous to start with).

I'm not here to defend these guys, the only reason I replied to your post was because it contained emotionally charged inaccuracies with no basis in fact and seeing that kind of stuff posted anywhere pisses me off. I suggest you go back and re-read the news articles (preferably some others from different sources as well) and objectively look at what is actually being said, and by whom.

BenignDesign, on 20 November 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

If you actually read the news article you linked you will notice that Peter Jackson never denied the deaths, he denied mistreating the animals (big difference). The deaths themselves were investigated by the SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and there was no evidence of animal cruelty found. There is a big difference between beating a horse til it dies and allowing it to run free in paddock where it accidentally and with out human intervention runs off a cliff (something that many animals somehow manage to avoid on a daily basis).

In your tutorial you mention initialising data members when creating your class - 'real' and 'imaginary' - by setting them to 0, ie:

import math

class Complex:
	real = 0
	imaginary = 0
	def __init__(self, a, B)/>/>:
		self.real = a
		self.imaginary = b

You should note that 'real' and 'imaginary' are very different to 'self.real' and 'self.imaginary'. By creating 'non self' variables you are actually creating the equivalent of a static variable that persists between instances. It will not directly affect your code here because aside from setting them to '0' you don't do anything else and the 'self.real' and 'self.imaginary' variables are totally separate because they belong to a specific instance of 'Complex', however they are redundant and could be removed.

Also I think '__Mag' should be changed to 'Mag' in the final code section, I get an error when I try to run 'E.Mag()' (goes away if I just eliminate the '__').