[Noisebridge-discuss] Rachel's language

[Ronald Cotoni]

You know what, perhaps that should be a list wide thing.  It shows respect
and transparency.  What does everyone think?
On Mar 27, 2014 9:06 PM, "Hannah Grimm" <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:

> At this point, I think it should be clear that Rachel *does not* want to
> be contacted off-list.  Johnny is aware of that, and any further attempts
> at off-list communication would likely fall under "persistent unwanted
> communication" which is forbidden by our anti-harassment policy.
>
> Johnny's initial messages were unwanted, but I don't think they qualify as
> persistent yet.  It was probably a misunderstanding, but hep is correct
> that repeatedly pushing boundaries and then apologizing when you're called
> out is a pattern frequently used as a cover for intentional bad behavior.<https://gist.github.com/doubleunionboard/9222410> Could we perhaps all agree that a line has been drawn, Johnny now knows
> where it is, and leave it at that until/unless he tries to push that
> boundary again?
>
> As an aside, just to make my preferences clear, I also prefer not to be
> contacted off-list.  I suspect that's probably true of most of the women
> here, though obviously I can only speak for myself.  I've relied on the
> "soft no" of just not responding to off-list emails in the past, but I
> realize it may be wiser to just be explicit about it.
>
> Could we please return to treating each other civilly now?
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:19 PM, hep <dis at gruntle.org> wrote:
>
>> I also agree that Johnny knew about this request. I will note that this
>> is something that many female tech persons have to deal with, having their
>> wishes for contact explicitly ignored and then having the calling out of
>> that behavior questioned. "misunderstanding" seems to go a long way towards
>> excusing boundary crossing behavior.
>>
>> -hep
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...... I think Rachel is on target here. Johny must have previously seen
>>> Rachel's post-to-list behavior and deliberately wrote that to bother her.
>>>
>>> If I imagine Johny writing that to anyone else it seems pretty
>>> nonsensical.
>>>
>>> --Naomi
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 7:11 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Because he added the request for you to post to the list does not mean
>>> he knew that you did not want to be privately messaged, if I follow this
>>> right.
>>>
>>> But he does know now, so he won't. I agree with Ryan, this does seem
>>> like a misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> Lolol.
>>>
>>> Johny's claim of innocence here would make sense if he hadn't appended a
>>> request to post his messages to the list to both private emails he sent me.
>>>
>>> I don't expect an apology from him, but if he is calling the quote I
>>> posted a lie that's interesting, and if he expects anyone to believe that
>>> he didn't know about this desire of mine then I don't really know what that
>>> quote was supposed to mean. Here's the request he put in his other email to
>>> me:
>>> "I hope you don't like this message so that you share it on-list."
>>>
>>> Do you deny writing that, johny? Be sure to tell my killfile all about
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I'll say that in fact the times we've encountered each other at
>>> noisebridge I've been, if anything, rude to him, since I think he's <elided
>>> negative words>.
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>> In summary; a misunderstanding, all is good.
>>> On Mar 27, 2014 8:19 PM, "Johny Radio" <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  ------ Original Message ------
>>>> From: "hep" <dis at gruntle.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rachel asked *everyone* to please message her onlist in at least one
>>>> recent thread that I read
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, i don't have time to read every post to the list. So no,
>>>> i did not see that. Nor do i feel it's my responsibility to read every post
>>>> by rachelyra, to make sure i don't miss any general instructions.
>>>>
>>>> And since Rachel and i have chilled in-person at NB with friendly
>>>> vibes, i had no reason to assume that.
>>>>
>>>> To Spinach claim, Rachel never asked me, Johny Radio, not to message
>>>> her off-list, as Spinach stated.
>>>>
>>>> If Rachel, or anybody, does not want to be messaged off-list, i suggest
>>>> you put that in your signature in every post you send.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> hep
>> hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>>     dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140327/ff830148/attachment.html>