On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:57, Nick Bolten <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. > > 1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind. >
Legally, it is. "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment: The *legal* definition of *blindness* varies from country to country but most nations, including the *UK* define it as having a visual acuity of worse than 20 in 200. ... The limit usually imposed is a visual field of 20 degrees or less, which is about 10% of the visual field of someone with 'normal' eyesight. It's been a long time since "blind" meant "no vision whatsoever." It's sometimes considered more polite to refer to the visually impaired, but that is more typing when you are referring to people who are legally blind. BTW, I am visually impaired but not legally blind (or close to it). If you wear spectacles, you are visually impaired (I have other visual problems besides wearing spectacles). It is not incorrect to use "blind" here. 2) I didn't say you hated anyone. > You implied it. Read what you wrote carefully. About me not caring if blind (visually-impaired if you insist) people die crossing the road. I'd have to hate people to not care if they live or die. At best I'd have to be sociopathic. 3) The question was rhetorical: the premise is that you don't actually > believe that. > It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others. Not in the context of the rest of the paragraph which set the tone for your "rhetorical question." Read the whole paragraph again. I can quote it back to you again, if necessary. > The hope was that those making these claims would be jostled into > confronting the issue head-on. Unfortunately, there was no response - this > could've been clarified. > I'm willing to assume you're arguing in good faith but that you're bad at it. I'm willing to assume that you may be right but that you're bad at getting your points across. I'm even willing to assume that I'm too stupid to understand you, but judging by the enthusiastic lack of support for your proposals, so are most people here, which doesn't bode well for your proposals being adopted or used correctly if they are adopted. > I noticed when you called me condescending. > > I don't believe I've ever called anyone condescending. > It was another of your anonymous "one person was condescending to me" side-swipes. You do a lot of that. I'm willing to assume you think it makes you less confrontational, but I think otherwise. Because everyone can work out who you're talking about but you deny that person the ability to easily respond without risking a deflection like "I never called YOU condescending, I just said there were condescending people." A veiled insult is still an insult. The rest of the response seems like something to discuss on other threads. > Brief summary: crossing signals and crossing markings (such as zebra stripes) are NOT orthogonal in practice (at least in the UK, other countries may differ); allowing them to be marked as such on OSM would lead to greater dangers for the visually impaired. However, that all depends on whether or not I've correctly interpreted what you mean by "markings." Until today I couldn't make head or tail of what you meant by them since it contradicted most people's natural interpretation of how crossings are implemented and how they work and at times you seemed to contradict yourself (the Socratic method doesn't work too well here, if that's what you were attempting). Maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe you are. So can we have a meaningful attempt to figure out each other's positions or should we just continue lobbing veiled insults at each other until the moderator kicks one or both of us off the list? -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
