[Noisebridge-discuss] [drama] Frantisek is going to stop living at Noisebridge starting tonight.

[Albert Sweigart]

>   jason's right. the word "living" has a specific and
> strong meaning in english, and is definitely not
> appropriate to describe your time at noisebridge.

I feel like I need to clarify this, because it wasn't the impression I
wanted to give at all. Frantisek was living, as in residing, at
Noisebridge. He did not sleep overnight every single night, but would
do so multiple times each week and had been for months. He also
planned to continue doing this indefinitely for his stay in the bay
area. He kept his personal affects here and the tea room had not been
used for much else besides his bedroom.

He said in one of his emails that he did not live at Noisebridge, but
lived at "two or three [other] places". It's really hard to see
Noisebridge as anything but just another place he lived, even if it
was not the only place he lived.

This isn't about sleeping at Noisebridge as in taking short naps
during the day. This isn't about sleeping at Noisebridge overnight
because you miss the last Bart. This is about consciously planning to
use Noisebridge as a place to spend nights on a regular basis for an
indefinite period of time, and to do so secretly without the informing
the general community because they would find those types of
reoccurring overnights unexcellent if they had known about them.

This completely fits the definition of living that people mean when we
say, "we don't want people living at noisebridge".

-Al


On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:29 PM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
>
>   jason's right. the word "living" has a specific and
> strong meaning in english, and is definitely not
> appropriate to describe your time at noisebridge.
>   you are living in the san francisco bay area, and
> one cannot properly be more specific than that, given
> your living arrangements. you are not living at
> noisebridge. you have slept there and you're there a
> lot. you may consider it your home as others have also
> so claimed, but it is certainly not where you live in
> the sense we use the term. please accommodate us native
> speakers and don't get creative with the small words
> to which we attach important meanings.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 20:13 +0000, Jason Dusek wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 17:55, Frantisek Apfelbeck <algoldor at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > As I wrote before, the phrasing "living at Noisebridge" should
>> > be changed to "sleeping at Noisebridge". I'm not going to
>> > sleep at Noisebridge as I promised however I'm still going to
>> > be around Noisebridge a whole lot. Therefore phrase that I'm
>> > living at Noisebridge I believe is correct and I'm going to
>> > keep using it because I really believe that the phrasing in
>> > the headline is misleading and should not be used in the
>> > future in reference to the general problem of people sleeping
>> > at Noisebridge. I'm alive so I live in the places where I'm
>> > present. I do not want to play with worlds but I really feel
>> > that there is a major difference especially to the people who
>> > do not really fallowed the discussion.  That is at least how I
>> > see it.
>>
>>   This is not what most people mean by "living at Noisebridge".
>>   Thanks for clarifying yourself; but I think a more standard
>>   description of what you are doing will be better for all
>>   concerned.
>>
>> --
>> Jason Dusek
>> Linux User #510144 | http://counter.li.org/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>