[Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:04, Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I
> mentioned...
>

Projection much?

There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to
> speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact. It
> serves no purpose other than to divide and denigrate and has no place in a
> community-oriented project.
>

YOU were the one who claimed, without evidence, that others had accused you
of acting in bad faith.
YOU MADE THAT CLAIM.

I wondered why you had done so because, in another sub-thread, you implied
that I was disagreeing
with you because I hated people with visual impairments.  Here's the quote
from that thread:

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?

That looks very much to me like you were demonizing those who disagreed
with you.  Poisoning the
well.  It sure looks that way.  Whether you intended it to or not.  It came
across as you accusing me
of hating the visually impaired, or at least not caring if they live or
die.  People should ignore
anything I say, because I hate the blind.

If people have been accusing you of acting in bad faith (I've yet to see
evidence of that) then I
can understand why if that is how you typically interact with them.  But
everybody is marching out
of step except you, so lets have a moderated forum where you are the
moderator.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190524/71e93919/attachment.html>