On a mailing list, in a community, I can't imagine anything more rude and divisive than *publicly* telling someone that he can go away if he don't like things the way you (/and others, even the majority indeed/) like it, and that you are considering to block him/her *just for the opinions she/she express* (/mind you, not for the way he/she express it.../).
On 2019-02-14 14:02, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 12:34, Sergio Manzi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail. > > That is your right. Even if you are strongly dissenting about somebody > expressing strong > dissent, it is your right. > > Everybody, not only you and the most vocifeferous ones, have the right to > express their opinion. > > > Indeed. I strongly support everyone's right to express their opinion. As > far as I am concerned, > you can say whatever you want. But you cannot force me, or anyone else, to > listen. Interacting > with others in a way that stops them listening to you is not an effective way > of getting your point > across. YMMV. > > You can dissent, but the tone of your mail is definitely rude and > divisive. > > Rude??? I refrained from giving my opinion of the guy (which is something > most people > would consider to be extremely negative) and merely told him what options were > available to him since he is dissatisfied with the current situation. The > OSM community > has given a great deal of thought to copyright issues to arrive at their > position and I don't > see much chance of them moving to his position, a position they explicitly > state is (in > their opinion) not tenable. > > His only feasible options are to live with what we have, stop mapping, set up > a competing project, > or continue to rant incomprehensibly here. Should he continue to rant here > then he's likely to > end up in killfiles. Telling him that isn't rude, it's advising him that he > is not doing himself any > favours with his current behaviour. > > Think twice. > > I thought three times before I posted. You would certainly have thought the > second version of my > post to be extremely rude. And you would have had a conniption fit over the > first version. What I > actually posted refrained from rebuking him and instead offered a stark, > unadorned explanation > of the options open to him. > > -- > Paul > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
