I was trying to discuss and show a ‘more pythonic’ way of performing an action. You yourself have told me that exact quote before. Here are the examples of you arguing and trying to win an argument:
I understand what you mean, but I personally wouldn’t use that method. It looks verbose and in my eyes, 89.5 is never greater than 90. Especially with hardware. When you round, you use a tolerance line of ‘0.5’ thickness instead of a tolerance band that has zero thickness.
I’m done discussing this at this point because it’s clearly personal.
yup your statement are wrong. thats not trying to win anything, but just a fact.
if you say that roundup isnt pythonic, then i ask why ist a default python function?
sorry but i am not going into the discussion between what is better, truncate or round.
89.55 is never greater then 90 but in my eyes its better to say 89.55 is equal to 90 then to say its equal to 89
so we have clearly a different viewpoint and thats no problem.
but still i stick with the fact that its not true when you say something is redundant, when the outcome is different.
don’t know when to quit eh?
its hard isnt it to leave someone else with the last words 
and also it seems to me that you have a hard time to say:
“hey, you where right your formula has a different result. i wouldnt chose to go for that result, but i didnt say that.”
but no hard feelings, from the moment you used the word “pythonic” tou already stated that python isnt just a language but a religion to you. and i am not a religous person
you may have the last reply now if you want
I literally didn’t address you. 
I was talking to the original poster and you took offense and started this whole bs… Just backtrack to my first comment. I never once said you are wrong or disagreed with your method. I simply stated that
int(round(int(x)/y))
is redundant and explained why, not realizing a change occurred after python 2.5.