[Noisebridge-discuss] [offlist] Re: common courtesy: logging into wiki / not editing user pages

[Patrick Keys]

Rigel,
What does any of your message have to do with Noisebridge? Why does 
anybody care about mine (or anybody else's) private life?  I've always 
been a good sport about personal attacks on me, but this mailing list 
has about 500 people on it.  Given that everything you're discussing 
took place outside of Noisebridge, you're not giving any sort of 
consideration to this amazing non-profit that we all enjoy.

And you got my email all wrong.  My email to that person was the result 
of being followed online and offline by that woman outside of 
Noisebridge since last November.  My email leaded off with "You're a 
smart mature woman."  And it ended with a whole paragraph about hoping 
we could still be really good friends.  Not that anybody at Noisebridge 
cares at all.

noisebridge-discuss is the bain of my existance.  This thread is more 
worthless drama that's left me feeling icky.  I'm going to take a long 
hot relaxing shower.


Patrick


On 2/22/2011 3:21 AM, Rigel Christian wrote:
> I am not going to talk with you privately. All of my correspondence
> with you will be in this public forum. If you want an answer to that
> question, ask it publicly and i'm sure there are people who will be
> able to give you additional details.
>
> example: after someone told you they were creeped out by your email
> solicitation, you reportedly responded by leading off with
>
> "I'm certain that you are neither offended nor creeped out."
>
> And went on to continue your harassment of this poor person. That
> qualifies as "repeated"
>
> This is unacceptable. It's probably part of why you have also been
> (reportedly) banned from other hacker spaces.
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Patrick Keys<citizenkeys at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> What do you mean "repeated"? i cant think of anybody i've spoken with more
>> than once that could in any way ever be considered any sort of "sexual
>> advance".
>>
>>
>> Patrick
>> --
>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> Rigel Christian<rigelc at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Patrick Keys<citizenkeys at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:>  I'm not so much interested in "fixing/changing Noisebridge" as I am
>>>> interested in making it available for more people.  For example, the>
>>> idea of lockers was to make room for more people and projects.>  Was there
>>> some hidden tribe of proto-NBers lurking outside waiting hopefully for the
>>> day that NB had lockers? It seems very much like you have adopted this
>>> rhetorical argument without actually checking to see if your suspicions
>>> about how to empower people line up with peoples' own sense of empowerment.
>>> but of course, that requires you to actually be interested in what other
>>> people have to say, or their needs. to wit, making repeated unsolicited
>>> sexual advances to people who have already told you in no uncertain terms to
>>> fuck off is PROFOUNDLY disempowering. Furthermore, in light of these type of
>>> incidents, referring to someone's wife as a "hot chick" can not be
>>> charitably dismissed as clumsily executed statements of admiration or good
>>> will. They are clearly misogyny. Lots of people are irritated by this.
>>> People are reputed to be avoiding the space because of how not just
>>> non-excellent, but utterly fucking BOGUS you are being to them. I have no
>>> firsthand knowledge of them, being on the other side of the country, but i
>>> have no doubt they exist. These are all of a piece. They show a lack of
>>> interest in what other people want, but only in what you can get from them.
>>> This is worse than simple insensitivity.>  I very deeply take to heart
>>> Mitch's concept of "Everybody is welcome at>  Noisebridge".  Empowering
>>> people is something I feel very strongly>  about.  Sometimes it sounds like
>>> the tone from others, though, is "we've>  got enough people here already.
>>>   I've got mine so fuck it if there's>  room for anybody else."  Thinking
>>> that way is less than excellent.>  You're not fooling anyone.