Rob,
So you're cool with impolite debate on technical issues but not with
impolite debate on procedural issues? That's odd. I can see tolerance
on both. And I can see intolerance on both (I disagree with the approach
but at least it's consistent). I can even see it the other way around
because technical issues are not personal while procedural issues kind
of are. But I'm having a hard time understanding your position. Can you
explain?
Also, do you think my "problematic" emails were racist? If so, can
you explain why?
Dan.
On 10/1/22 5:03 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
Hi,
I'm cool with impolite debate when there is a technical issue at hand (others are not, and I see their point).
But most of this stuff seems to be sent regarding procedural issues. I think the IETF should tighten the charters and policies of all non-technical mailing lists.
thanks,Rob
P.S. - at Mozilla, we used to keep a bulletin board of the various strange letters we received in the mail
On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 4:27 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OK Dave let's dig deeper, The good news is that you didn't disagree with me when I said Dan's emails were not racist. The rest inline.
> On 10/01/2022 3:32 PM EDT David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I think you've inadvertently helped clarify what a "problematic email" is.
> Let's take your email that I'm replying to as an example. The point
> you're trying to make (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding) is
> that you disagree about the posting rights action regarding Dan Harkins.
Yes that's correct, notably on whether Dan Harkins has engaged in postings that are "unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject" in a manner disruptive enough to warrant this action.
> But let's look at how you're making that point. You say:
> <<Anyone who is actually upset about the "problematic emails" is either
> to weak for a leadership position or has an underlying agenda.>>
> I was upset by Dan's emails, so now you're accusing me of either being
> weak, or being dishonest.
Whoa whoa Dave, I didn't say you were dishonest! Thats a bit of a bait and switch with my words sir. But since you bring it up and you said Dan's emails upset you, I'm sure you spoke up about it. Lets check over on the terminology list, nope no Dave there[1]. Lets check on every one of those problem email threads, I'm sure you said something there....nope, no Dave there either. Maybe they didn't really bother you. Maybe you were right to use the word dishonest, idk.
> Why do you feel the need to belittle me here?
I guess subconsciously I was trying to fit in, I've been picking it up here and there. But I get so confused...Carsten calls me stupid and gets a thumbs up; Masataka Ohta calls some one stupid and gets banned. I'm just not sure who to belittle these days.
> Then let's about this drink you're having at the pub. The way you repeat it
> seems to indicate that you already know that this way of naming the
> drink is offensive,
Yeah, the guy next to me ordered a White Russian and I just about knocked him out I was so furious!! Doesn't that guy know all Russians aren't white! How dare he not know the litteral roots of the drink he ordered! I'm going to tell the manager how upset I am and see if I can get him kicked out. But first I'm going to get all my friends together so we can all tell the manager, that way it will look like a huge issue and they will have to do something!
> Some people on this list might
> be of Irish descent, and might find it upsetting that you belittle a part of
> their history where some of their family members might have lost their
> lives.
Not sure if you caught my last name but....whatever. If I had family members that were burned to death I wouldn't call you inconsiderate for having a campfire.
> So by this rhetoric flourish of yours, you're intentionally making people
> feel bad by bringing bad hard memories.
That was a poetic. Eliot! Where's Eliot? There is a poet over here!
If calling you a poet stirs up any hard memories, well, idk, I guess that's poetic justice.
> There's no way that repeating this
> drink name six times helps make your point that Dan Harkins should be
> allowed to post on a mailing list.
No no, that's not true. The repitition is to help you remember.
Remember how ridiculous this whole thing is.
> So yes, your email is problematic.
There you go again with the labels. Did you know that by labeling something you make it exclusive? And being exclusive is not very inclusive.
> In the future, please attempt to make you points without intentional being rude,
> disrespectful, or belittling. You'll find that people will listen to you
> more.
How did I do this time?
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/terminology/?q=dschinazi.ietf%40gmail.com
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
-- "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
