I don't believe there is any purpose being served by this back-and-forth. I could kind of justify it for a bit in that it's demonstrating my original points about decorum, but that's a dead horse now.
I think drawn-out rehashings of a particular proposal thread should probably go in that thread, so let's keep them there. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:01 PM Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Legally, it is. "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual >>> impairment (...) >> >> >> Nevertheless, I said low vision. >> > > Potatoes, potahtoes. Actually, now I think about it, that's not a good > analogy. Here's what you said: > > Anyways, that's a strange way to frame "mapping something I don't care > about". How is it obsessive? I've already listed several important use > cases, so I will be blunt: do you think people with low vision are > irrelevant and don't matter? Is this an ableist community? Do pedestrians > getting struck by cars not matter? Is it okay that they die? > > So, according to your correction, I don't just hate the legally blind, I > hate people with "low vision," a > far lower bar than the one I assumed you intended. My hatred for humanity > has been greatly > extended, it seems. > > > You implied it. >> >> I don't believe I did, but I apologize if that's the case. >> > > And I apologize for saying your behaviour seemed obsessive. However, > back then I did not > know why you were so eager to push us down a particular path when so many > felt (and still feel) > it unnecessary. That doesn't mean I agree with your reasons for > disrupting a couple of > million tags, now I know what is driving this push, because I don't. But > at least I know it's not > obsession driving it. > > > 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. >> >> Sure, but on the thread for that proposal, please. >> > > Ooops. I did it here. Because I'm responding here. And I don't know > which other thread you mean, > since so many threads have been spawned about this. > >> >> > 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 don't see how responses like this serve any purpose. Seems like a good >> example of the toxicity I'm saying we should try to do away with, as a >> community. >> > > It serves a purpose because the toxicity came with you. It wasn't here > before. It seems that anything > that runs counter to your viewpoint is toxic. Anyone who points out that > we didn't have any > noticeable toxicity before you appeared is toxic. In short, you appear to > be using "toxicity" to silence > anyone who disagrees with you, a behaviour which some of us feel actually > is toxic. I was willing > to assume you're bad at communicating rather than behaving as you do as a > deliberate strategy > to silence criticism. That position is becoming less tenable for me as > the thread continues. > > 3. When I search my email, nothing comes up recently for "condescending" >> aside from this particular thread. I mean, there have been some pretty >> clearly condescending replies from various individuals in the past week or >> two, but I don't believe I used that language. >> > > I can't find it now. Which could mean memory problems on my part. Or > worse. In which case, > my apologies. > > 4. I fail to see how describing a response as condescending would even be >> an insult. I don't recall calling anyone's intelligence into question, but >> I've sure been on the receiving end of it. Am I wrong to point this out? >> > > You are no more wrong (or right) to point it out than I am to point out > where your posts appear to > be personal attacks. I don't think it's doing much for the list in > general and I suspect many are > bored with it. But at least one person here is having difficulty > communicating in a way that doesn't > arouse ire in at least one other person. > > -- > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
