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

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim, responses inline.
David

On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 4:13 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]> wrote:

> OK Dave let's dig deeper,


I have to admit this isn't my favorite use of a Saturday, so I can't
promise I'll keep digging with you much deeper.


> The good news is that you didn't disagree with me when I said Dan's emails
> were not racist.


Silence and agreement are quite different. I'm choosing to stay out of that
particular debate.


> The rest inline.
>
>
>
> > On 10/01/2022 3:32 PM EDT David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
> 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.


My apologies for reading too much into "having an agenda".


> 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.


You're again ascribing meaning to silence when there is none. As you can
imagine, I have a full-time job which keeps me quite busy so I am not able
to read or respond to every IETF email.


> Maybe you were right to use the word dishonest, idk.
>

If I were to interpret this statement as you accusing me of dishonesty,
would I be misunderstanding you?

> 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.
>

Oh that's an easy one to answer: no one. I would suggest you not belittle
anyone on IETF mailing lists.

> 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.
>

Inclusivity doesn't need to apply to all. I am a happy member of multiple
groups that exclude rude people. Anyone can choose to not be rude. I choose
to not be around rude people.

> 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?
>

I don't think you've convinced anyone to change their opinion on the topic
of this thread. I see that you believe that a lot of what we're trying to
do here is ridiculous. That topic might even warrant some debate, but
antagonizing your correspondents rarely helps to convince them. Anyway, I
do hope you find hobbies that bring you more joy than performative
witticisms over email. Have a great rest of your weekend.

David

[1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/terminology/?q=dschinazi.ietf%40gmail.com
>