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

Nick Bolten nbolten at gmail.com
Fri May 24 23:16:32 UTC 2019


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 <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten <nbolten at gmail.com> 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
> 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/20190524/2ac3a0db/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list