[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems

Jeffrey Carl Faden jeffreyatw at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 21:43:43 UTC 2014

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 further recommended course of action - resulted in
today's much longer email.

Honestly, it seems like Tom just glossed over this latest email and forgot
to reply.

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 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 on Tom's part.

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 be a discussion about how you behaved in response to
his ignoring you (regardless of whether it was intentional).


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:

> 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:
>  Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:49:10 -0800 (PST)
>  From: Jake <jake at spaz.org>
>  To: Tom Lowenthal <me at tomlowenthal.com>
>  Subject: Re: solving problems
>  Hi Tom,
>  Thank you for writing back.  I will probably be hanging around the house
>  tomorrow, i live in Oakland.  Or we could meet up at noisebridge or
>  anywhere, just let me know what times you prefer.
>  If there are other people you are aware of who should participate in this
>  discussion we should invite them too.
>  -jake
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jeffrey Carl Faden wrote:
>  Why didn't you include those repeated attempts?
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>       Hannah,
>>       once again I ask you to please read my emails before replying to
>> them. You said:
>>              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 was
>> replying
>>             and being reasonable
>>                 about why he disagreed with your proposal.  In short, the
>> exact opposite of what you're claiming here.
>> what I said was:
>>             I replied to the attached email and got nothing in response.
>> This is after REPEATED attempts to get you to talk about your objections
>>             and seek a common ground, talk about friendly amendments, or
>> any progress at all.
>> do you understand why what you've said is inaccurate and misleading?
>> -jake
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140314/4a7aa4ac/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list