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

Fri May 24 23:25:24 UTC 2019

>
> 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.
>

 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.

I find this extremely ironic after all that I've read today on this mailing
list. Have been internally debating calling you out on it, in some sense it
feels like stooping to your level. If nobody does though, you'll go on
thinking everyone's in agreement with you for some reason.

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:01 AM 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/20190525/f2150470/attachment-0001.html>