[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

Rikke Rasmussen rikke.c.rasmussen at gmail.com
Fri Feb 25 04:28:07 UTC 2011

Rachel, thank you so much for the calm (if ironic) clarification - I would
like to apologise for not reading the open letter carefully enough to gauge
the amount of authority behind this, and amend my perception  of the
proceedings accordingly. I should have known better. It will not happen

I would also like to apologise to the victims in this matter - I have
unthinkingly made you feel that there are people at Noisebridge who do not
respect your right to security of person. This is absolutely not the case,
and I am so, so sorry.

My reaction was motivated by fear of repetition of a similar incident in
another community, where one member was not just socially excluded, but also
physically punished, for his transgressions (also physical, and against me,
by the way). And the aftertaste of that incident - being forced to watch my
friends devolve into a violent lynching mob, and unable to make myself
heard: I was angry enough to kill him myself, but not nearly angry enough to
have someone else do it for me - combined with the promise to "escort" him
out of the space, made me jump the gun. I really cannot apologise enough for

I've read the meeting notes, the redacted email transcript and two separate
testimonies, and Patrick's behaviour leaves me in no doubt that the
undersigners of the open letter did the right thing. I'm sorry it took me a
day and a half to see this. Having once had the misfortune of being engaged
to a clinical sociopath, I recognise the patterns: complete lack of empathy
or remorse, insistently delusional paranoia/self-flattery, massive reality
warp, threats, a knack for manipulation and seemingly rational
self-justification...all point to a type of person I do not want to have
anywhere near Noisebridge, not now, not ever. Thank you for not being afraid
of acting when you needed to.

I will of course show up at the meeting on Tuesday to apologise in person
for the unnecessary grief I've caused.


On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:07 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com>wrote:

> "Adrian Bankhead" <invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, in the name of "do-ocracy", we have the ability to ban people even
> before the group has reached consensus.  And because there is no due
> process, the banned person can't defend themselves.  Do I understand this
> correctly?
> >
> Thanks for asking! You, and I think many others, do not have it right, in
> just this way.  We all have the ability to choose how we act towards each
> other. The letter-signers were a group of individuals present when the
> evidence was all unveiled together for the first time. As individuals we all
> together decided to shun a member of the larger community. As individuals we
> all together command quite a bit of community respect. This is why what we
> have done seems official. It is our mistake that it seems so official, but I
> think that is a result of the number of people, the esteem in which their
> opinions are held, and the level of gravity to which they (we) are assigning
> the evidence.  We are so convinced that we all stepped up to personally take
> irrevocable and distasteful action.
> (and we do all need to work later on recording our lessons from this
> experience. Maybe you Alarmed People can write the form letter for Persons
> Under Consideration of Banning? Then you can help future conflicted souls
> find the right way to convey to you, dear readers, the proper amounts of
> distress and authority.)
> R.
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110224/928218e3/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list