* Bugs, by their very nature, are often obscure; some of the worst
  in history have lain dormant, unseen, for years or perhaps even
  decades.

  Unsurprisingly, then, this bug is also a corner case that would be
  unknowingly triggered in practice only rarely; consequently, it is
  unsurprising that it has not been reported previously, despite the
  fact that the mistake is OBVIOUS in a retrospective (and literal!)
  reading of PEP 235, which is clearly naive in its view of the world
  of computing systems.

* Furthermore, in any computing system that is sufficiently complex,
  there is usually a workaround for any particular bug, which thus
  diminishes the impetus to report the problem at all; this just
  compounds the obscurity of the bug.

* The more obscure a bug, the less compelling the ratio of the
  reward to the solution effort, particularly when the objections
  are mired not in technical analysis, but rather in an incomplete
  understanding of the report, as well as perhaps some kind of
  political puffery.

  So, why bother even beginning a discussion of the issue?

  Indeed, this correspondence has proven to me (once again,
  unfortunately) that it's usually an utter waste of resources to
  attempt to solve problems purely for the benefit of others. Let
  the confused gnash their teeth, and let the clever hack their
  own way out of trouble. As long as my personal itch has been
  scratched in some way, that's good enough.

* How is it that you did not perceive the irrelevance of [at least
  the rest of] your reply?