[Noisebridge-discuss] why cointelpro2.0 kills community
setient at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 03:22:25 UTC 2014
I was at the meeting for banning josh. Initially it was consensed upon 2
or 3 times but I kept continuing the discussion (as I was moderating).
It was decided to put it off till the next week and I thought it was. I
had 3 stand asides originally, including James. I kept asking because it
felt like you wanted someone else to block and no one would actually do it.
That was mildly unexcellent behavior.
As for the membership list, I think Tom removed the consensus item to
rethink it or perhaps make it a board based decision.
Leif, please reread that email I sent to Jake. I want to respond in a less
emotional manner so I plan on responding later. Basic thing: I believe
that law enforcement (with our current society and the way humanity
currently exists) should be contacted on a case by case basis. I would
contact law enforcement if I found a dead body for example. That makes
sense to me. lets talk sometime!
Jake same to you as to what I said to Leif. I do respect you but lets
come up with solutions and find better ways.
I think I will write a not emotional blog post at some point addressing
both of you since I completely agree with both of you in that is the way
humanity should be and how I think we can get to that point.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:12 PM, maestro <maestro415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Message ends
> On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Leif Ryge <leif at synthesize.us> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:18:11AM -0700, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
> >> I think that the criticisms in your message are aimed at me. If
> >> they're not, and it's someone else you're calling an awful person, a
> >> petty tinpot dictator, an informant, an infiltrator, a lazy and
> >> incompetent hijacker with awful intentions, then I apologise. Sadly, I
> >> think you're talking about me.
> > I think the informant part, at least, was likely referring to Ronald
> > (who you and Al decided was a member over my objections) since he is
> > actually known to have been an FBI informant.
> > 1:
> > 2:
> > I do think you're acting like a dictator. I don't have any reason to
> > you're a state-sponsored infiltrator, other than that your actions are
> > consistent with someone intent on destroying a community organization
> and that
> > is a thing states sometimes covertly do. It also seems plausible that
> > just doing this for the lulz.
> > I appreciate and agree with Rachel1.0's recent "assume good faith"
> message, and
> > I generally try to do that. Unfortunately, I stopped doing that with
> you, Tom,
> > sometime last year when you told me quite plainly, in the context of a
> > discussion about creating new policies at Noisebridge, that you are a
> > troll". You literally said to me "You do know that I'm a giant troll,
> > you?". (I was surprised to learn this, and said as much.)
> > I regret that I haven't spent much of my recent time and energy on
> > your bureaucratic process-trolling of Noisebridge. Living far away, as I
> > now, has a lot to do with it, but I do still love Noisebridge and it
> saddens me
> > to watch your attempts at destroying it.
> > My recommendation to the members of Noisebridge is to have a new board
> > election, and elect people who aren't process fetishists. You shouldn't
> > Tom's permission to do this, though I expect he'll tell you that you do.
> > Removing Tom's membership would also be prudent, since he has clearly
> > that he doesn't respect our consensus process.
> > ~leif
> > ps: what's the story here?
> *~the quieter you become, the more you are able to hear...*
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss