[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems
Jeffrey Carl Faden
jeffreyatw at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 21:59:40 UTC 2014
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
> 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.
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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.
>> 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:
>> 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
>> 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
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss