[OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[stevea]

On Dec 3, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Michal Migurski <mike at teczno.com> wrote:
> For those using or defending rape metaphors, shame on you.

I take offense (and will not be shamed) at Mike's gross mischaracterization (after I took GREAT pains to be painstaking) of my reiteration of Frederik's analogy of offensive-to-women behavior by a politician being something we should be highly wary and suspect of in our board election.  NEVER was the word "rape" used, the highly offensive behavior was called out AS highly offensive for the purpose of making an analogy:  "don't be sweet-talked by people who act highly offensively while promising not to act highly offensively after they are elected."  Moreover, such highly offensive behavior (certainly not rape) was NEVER condoned by neither Frederik nor myself.  Wow!

Frederik has no reason to be (a)shamed, he simply used strong language to say "be careful of false promises by deceptive people running for high office — you shouldn't be surprised when they remain deceptive after being elected."  (Some may he say did so with a colorful, perhaps offensive example – but I am certain him offering an example of heinous behavior does not mean he "defends rape.")  Wow!  And, certainly I have no reason to be (a)shamed for doing my utmost to clarify that, while pointing out that such behavior of blaming the one who calls out such behavior (as, Mike, you seem to be doing to Frederik here, once again) is often exactly the same sort of abusive behavior!

If we get this sort of misunderstanding from Mike mischaracterizing what happened HERE, well, I leave to this list to imagine what he might do if elected.  Mike, your behavior and words — as do mine, as do Frederik's — are here on display for anybody to reach their own conclusions.  Yes, you have a lot of work in OSM to your credit, but you certainly made a mess of this.  You might say Frederik "baited" you (I disagree), but it is the mark of a true leader who can understand someone making an analogy versus twisting it (repeatedly!) into something that it isn't, "blaming he who calls out bad behavior."  Especially when you denigrate him with something he didn't say.

Some might say this is a misunderstanding, though in light of what I wrote earlier about blame-shifting, please understand this behavior is often deeply entrenched, often not being seen for what it is in the eye of the beholder.

I would love for this list to get back to topics which are much more cool (literally and figuratively), as once again, I type my words here to generate light, not heat.  While I give Mike one (single) point in his favor for recently replying and (at first, generally) sticking to topics, the one-line "zinger" he ends with that I quote above rather rudely wipes all the nice pieces off the board, subtracting far, far more than his one, single point.  So, really, shame on you, Mike.

Please, let's keep it civil and honest here.

SteveA