[Noisebridge-discuss] Dogs
Eric W. Rasmussen
ewr at majortek.com
Mon Sep 17 07:30:17 UTC 2012
I love your pup. She looks menacing on appearance but gives great love
upon contact.
You have my support.
On 09/16/2012 10:15 PM, Mitchel McAllister wrote:
> There are several people here, two of whom were recently "confronted"
> on their dog being at Noisebridge, who bring their dog with them
> because they do not have anyone to watch their dog for them, and are
> not allowed to leave the dog at home unsupervised. Their dog has been
> quiet, friendly, and has not caused a mess. Yes, the dog is large, but
> usually just sits under the table. On one occasion, the dog did whine,
> but that was because she did see me walk into the space and wanted to
> say hello.
>
> However, the original poster stated the problem as if each and every
> large dog is a vicious man-killer just waiting to go off. Suddenly,
> the subject switched to breathing issues. And yes, if a person "can't
> breathe" due to a dog being present, then their allergies or asthma
> will be severe enough to be similarly affected by dust and other
> animal dander, not to mention chemical fumes.
>
> - Mik McAllister
>
> --- On *Sun, 9/16/12, Gopiballava Flaherty /<gopiballava at gmail.com>/*
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Gopiballava Flaherty <gopiballava at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Dogs
> To: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Date: Sunday, September 16, 2012, 9:35 PM
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Mitchel McAllister
> <xonimmortal at yahoo.com </mc/compose?to=xonimmortal at yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > I have yet to see anyone who has a problem breathing around dogs
> actually weigh in on this subject. It's hard to gauge how many
> people are affected this way, if none of them actually speak up.
>
> My wife no longer goes to NB because of the dogs.
>
> I think we need to hear from somebody who brings their dog to NB,
> or who feels the *personal* desire to have dogs there - not merely
> people defending the rights of others to bring dogs.
>
> We *know* that there are some people who have problems going to NB
> due to dogs. I think we need to understand, from the people who
> want to bring their dogs there, how much this would inconvenience
> them or how much less pleasant their hacking experience would be.
>
> (I'm not being facetious - I've never owned a dog, so I am not
> good at understanding the emotional or practical issues of how you
> feel about having your dog with your or about how most people cope
> with the fact that dogs are banned in many places.)
>
> > I am allergic to dust and pet dander. My sinuses are also
> irritated by certain chemical fumes. However, that is *my*
> problem, not Noisebridge's.
>
> So: Noisebridge should not do anything to make the space more
> suited for anybody? Ever? Of course not. There has to be balance.
>
> I think that comparing the fumes and chemicals emitted by hacking
> to the allergens emitted by dogs is an unreasonable comparison.
> Noisebridge is a *hackerspace*. There will be the airborne results
> of hacking, or else it will be an *extremely* limited hacking space.
>
> Dogs and other (non-service) companion animals make the place more
> pleasant for some hackers, but they aren't related to the core
> purpose of the space.
>
> Here's a thought experiment: If somebody started hacking with a
> chemical that made, say, 1/3 of people gag but 2/3 of people
> didn't even notice, would that be acceptable? (Assuming it was not
> killing people of course). I'd like to think that it would be
> something that needed long discussion and would have a high chance
> of being severely restricted because chasing people away is really
> not very excellent.
>
> Where would you draw the line? That's the question. But I really
> think there is a line between letting people do anything they
> want, and not chasing people away.
>
> > I am not going to demand that Noisebridge implement twice-daily
> cleanings to take care of dust.
>
> No, and neither is anybody else. Just because somebody can demand
> that you take *unreasonable* measures to accommodate their needs
> doesn't mean that you should do *nothing*.
>
> > Yes, I, a person allergic to dog dander, am defending the
> presence of dogs in the space. I made the decision a long time ago
> to cope with it, because I enjoy the presence of dogs and other
> furry creatures.
>
> You are aware that some people are more allergic than yourself, yes?
>
> > You also completely disregarded my point regarding the presence
> of other allergens in the space which exceeds the quantity of dog
> allergens in the space. I'm going to give you the benefit of a
> doubt and assume that was inadvertent. I look forward to seeing
> you correct this lapse.
>
> You made an assertion, not a point. You surely know that people
> can have different levels of allergic reactions to different
> compounds, yes? Quantity doesn't matter as much as reaction level.
>
> You also seem to be implying that banning dogs would not
> significantly help dog-allergic people because the dust is
> terrible enough to keep them out. Is that correct? If that is what
> you are claiming, and it's true, then really no further discussion
> is needed on the topic. However, I don't think you're right for
> most dog-allergic people.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> </mc/compose?to=Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120917/ce425560/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list