<div dir="ltr"><div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org" target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>no response is requested from you until you have understood everything i've said</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">This is the second time in this thread that you've accused others of not understanding you. As someone with a design mindset, I've learned that a user not being able to understand how to interact with a body of work is almost always /not/ the fault of the user. </div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I don't like your tone, and I think it'll be a lot easier for people to respond to your points if you take the hostility down a notch.</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Jake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org" target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
you could have saved everyone's time by simply saying "jake, it's your fault that Tom has stonewalled you on your issue, you should have tried harder"<br>
<br>
but then that makes it all the more obvious that you're taking the easy way out of this discussion by blaming the person who is complaining.<br>
<br>
i honestly think you could do better.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-jake<br>
<br>
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jeffrey Carl Faden wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So if I understand it correctly, the fact that Tom did not respond to this email, sent the same day of Tom's original response - in which "let me know" was the only<br>
further recommended course of action - resulted in today's much longer email.<br>
Honestly, it seems like Tom just glossed over this latest email and forgot to reply.<br>
<br>
I think a better course of action would have been to follow up a day or so later and make a more concrete suggestion about where and when to meet up. Instead, you<br>
consider this lack of communication (both ways - it's been almost two months of bi-directional silence now) to be an attempt to actively obstruct debate and progress<br>
on Tom's part.<br>
<br>
Getting the rest of the community involved in this doesn't seem like it's going to incite debate about the actual issue at hand; rather, it's probably just going to<br>
be a discussion about how you behaved in response to his ignoring you (regardless of whether it was intentional).<br>
<br>
Jeffrey<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jake <<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org" target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>> wrote:<br>
because they were in person, in irc, and sent-mail which i had not bothered to paste in. Here is the last email I had sent to Tom, which went unanswered:<br>
<br>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:49:10 -0800 (PST)<br>
From: Jake <<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org" target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>><br>
To: Tom Lowenthal <<a href="mailto:me@tomlowenthal.com" target="_blank">me@tomlowenthal.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: solving problems<br>
<br>
Hi Tom,<br>
<br>
Thank you for writing back. I will probably be hanging around the house<br>
tomorrow, i live in Oakland. Or we could meet up at noisebridge or<br>
anywhere, just let me know what times you prefer.<br>
<br>
If there are other people you are aware of who should participate in this<br>
discussion we should invite them too.<br>
<br>
-jake<br>
<br>
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jeffrey Carl Faden wrote:<br>
<br>
Why didn't you include those repeated attempts?<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Jake <<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org" target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>> wrote:<br>
Hannah,<br>
<br>
once again I ask you to please read my emails before replying to them. You said:<br>
<br>
2. Based on the email you forwarded, it looks like Tom was willing to meet with you to discuss this. To me, that looks like Tom<br>
was replying<br>
and being reasonable<br>
about why he disagreed with your proposal. In short, the exact opposite of what you're claiming here.<br>
<br>
<br>
what I said was:<br>
<br>
I replied to the attached email and got nothing in response. This is after REPEATED attempts to get you to talk about your<br>
objections<br>
and seek a common ground, talk about friendly amendments, or any progress at all.<br>
<br>
<br>
do you understand why what you've said is inaccurate and misleading?<br>
<br>
-jake<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.<u></u>noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-<u></u>discuss</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>