Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

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.
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. Why do you feel the need to belittle me here?
It doesn't help make your point, and it's honestly disrespectful. Then let's
talk 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, because it was also the name of a military force that
hurt innocent people about a century ago. 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.
So by this rhetoric flourish of yours, you're intentionally making people
feel bad by bringing bad hard memories. And you do this fully well knowing
that it doesn't further the conversation. 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. So yes, your email is problematic. 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.

Regards,
David Schinazi


On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 5:47 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On 10/01/2022 3:12 AM EDT [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > oh, I could deal with Harkins. But the point is, no-one should have to
> deal with Harkins.
> >
>
>
> Sorry I'm late to this party but after reading each of these "problematic
> emails", I could not find any evidence of racism[1]. Can someone please
> tell me which person was attacked and what their race was?
>
> Anyone who is actually upset about the "problematic emails" is either to
> weak for a leadership position or has an underlying agenda.  One of Dan's
> "problematic emails" is really spot on[2] and any reasonable person would
> agree with him.  I think when you say "problematic emails" you really mean
> "problematic for us" and everyone needs to agree to that so we sent out
> this last call.  In other words, problematic means Dan is a free thinker
> and we can't cope.
>
> I see no reason for Dan to be booted of the lists and no reason for this
> Action.  I have not read the deleted drafts but I would like to, so if
> someone could send me a copy or a pointer, that would be great.  I could
> read them while I'm at the pub sipping on a black and tan.  (see what I did
> there?) I said I'll be having balck and tan.
> balck and tan.
> balck and tan.
> balck and tan.
> cancel tim
> balck and tan.
>
>
>
> [1]  Definition I used is from Oxfords
> https://www.google.com/search?q=racism&rlz=1CAKVPC_enUS859&oq=racis&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i131i433i512l5j0i131i433j0i433i512j0i131i433.2616j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
>
> [2]
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/X6OF0MBKAzyLhYaAfAxS6srXRNw/
>
>