[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems

[Jeffrey Carl Faden]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:

>
> no response is requested from you until you have understood everything
> i've said


This is the second time in this thread that you've accused others of not
understanding you. As someone with a design mindset, I've learned that a
user not being able to understand how to interact with a body of work is
almost always /not/ the fault of the user.

I don't like your tone, and I think it'll be a lot easier for people to
respond to your points if you take the hostility down a notch.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:

> you could have saved everyone's time by simply saying "jake, it's your
> fault that Tom has stonewalled you on your issue, you should have tried
> harder"
>
> but then that makes it all the more obvious that you're taking the easy
> way out of this discussion by blaming the person who is complaining.
>
> i honestly think you could do better.
>
>
> -jake
>
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jeffrey Carl Faden wrote:
>
>  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).
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>>
>> 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/20140314/395112ee/attachment.html>