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

Fri May 24 22:14:51 UTC 2019

> Legally, it is.  "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual
impairment (...)

Nevertheless, I said low vision.

> You implied it.

I don't believe I did, but I apologize if that's the case.

> 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.

> 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 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.

1. There were several people asking for an explicit reference / evidence
for my claims. They did not "work it out" and find your interpretation.
2. I wasn't thinking of you, at all, in any of my bullet points. You've
taken that on yourself, assuming they're about you. In fact, I wasn't
thinking about anyone in particular - I did that on purpose. I have zero
interest in picking on any individual. I think I've been pretty clear on
that.
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.
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?

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:57, Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> 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
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190524/e42e3912/attachment-0001.html>