[Noisebridge-discuss] Tom refusing to solve problems

Jake jake at spaz.org
Fri Mar 14 22:05:19 UTC 2014


  The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the
  tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in
  question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issue at hand.
  Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can
  allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in
  that statement, thus undermining the original party's attempt to
  communicate and effectively shutting them down.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Jeffrey Carl Faden wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list