RE: Note to listowners

> The next time anyone dares to criticize me for being [whatever] on this
> esteemed List-- and, you know, sometimes WAI employees actually *call me
> on the phone* about that-- I would, for the record, point out that Steven
> Dale got to call me names twice in the last day, with impunity.

Hmm...

Let's see, Mr. Dale called you "...arrogant and unrealistic..." in his first
posting, and then he made reference to "...your obnoxious attitude..." in
his second post.

Calling a Spade a Spade is *not* name calling.  Your postings *ARE* very
often arrogant and obnoxious, and I (for one) have said it many times
before; it has also been commented upon by others on this list on more than
one occasion.

>
> If I'm not mistaken, such actions violate the requirement to "Treat other
> list members with respect" <http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/>. At least the
> parties involved aren't forwarding my private E-mail to the list.

That's right Joe... treat others with respect.  Your tone and treatment of
newer members on this list (and others) is to me often quite intolerable.  I
once wrote you privately asking you to re-consider your tone and demeanor
when responding, that the signal to noise ratio of your posts very often
concealed their true value.  Joe, do you remember this:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Clark [mailto:joeclark@joeclark.org]
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:40 PM
> > To: webaim-forum@list.webaim.org
> > Subject: Re: questions about accessible pdfs
> >
> >
> > Well, kids, Jukka has spoken.

How could an opening statement such as that not be taken as arrogant and
obnoxious? (True, it was posted to another list, but let's not quibble too
much.  I'm sure a troll through the WAI-IG archives could un-earth similar
gems).  And to further make my point, how about this one from the existing
thread:

> > Julian Scarlett said:
> > > James Craig wrote:
>
> Wow. A double top-post.

It's about tone, it's about respect.  We all wish to see a reasonable and
tolerant discussion of Accessibility issues on this and other lists, it is
incumbent for all participants (include Joe Clark) to remember to be
respectful of others and their points of view(s).

>
> The next time WCAG WG gets up in arms because I state that their proposals
> are crap, please keep this message in mind. You all seem much happier to
> let people defame my by name than to let me state and explain why your
> proposals stink.

Thing is, you don't "explain" - you "proclaim", and often when there are two
perfectly valid but differing points of view.

> Everywhere else, WCAG WG prizes being nicey-nicey over
> being accurate (to the extent that members can reiterate untruths for
> months as long as they're every so cheerful about it), but here's
> somebody who's being outright nasty and it's simply accepted.

Yet often you take a similar tone.  I for one don't see his comments as
"nasty" but rather, painfully true.

>
> I always knew I was right all along that there are Approved Persons on the
> -IG and -GL lists, plus another group we could call "everybody else."
> There's increasing evidence I'm in a category of one.
>
> Don't suppose there's something wrong here?

Only that it's a 2 way street.  Expect to get what you give.

JF
--
John Foliot  foliot@wats.ca
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   1.866.932.4878 (North America)

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 14:33:39 UTC