[Noisebridge-discuss] Rachel's language

Callme Whatiwant nejucomo at gmail.com
Sat Mar 29 23:22:28 UTC 2014


Johny: I haven't seen in this thread or anywhere else in my scant
coverage of noisebridge that you acknowledge that you've crossed
Rachel's boundary with respect to private email.

I *have* seen that you felt your email was justified, that Rachel's
boundary is inconsistent, that your behavior is "reasonable", etc...
The problem, for me, is that I can't really "hear" those things and
get behind you if you don't acknowledge the fact that there's a
boundary and that you've crossed it.  So the way I see it,
acknowledging that you crossed a boundary is probably the most
effective way you can garner support.  Do you see that, or do you
disagree?  I'm interested to hear either way.


Rachel: I don't know you, or Johny, or either of your histories very
much, so when I see you call someone a "gnat" I lose confidence that
if I were to cross one of your boundaries I wouldn't be insulted or
verbally attacked.  You seem like someone who values inclusiveness,
and I'm wondering if you see a contradiction?

Also, I respect the strategy of publishing private email that violates
boundaries as a way to maintain safety in this community, but throwing
an insult into the mix poisons the very safety such a strategy can
bring.  Would you agree, or do you see it differently?


Everyone else:  Who cares if Rachel previously posted her request
somewhere?  It's not like there's a magic ubiquitous Boundary
Declaration Protocol where we all look at the right wiki page or email
sig and then everyone *knows and never violates any other person's
boundaries*.

Everyone has all kinds of unique boundaries.  We cross one another's
boundaries all the time!  That's life.  What's important is that we
see, acknowledge, and have an intention to respect boundaries moving
forward.


It seems like the whole debate about whether or not a boundary "is
known" is to put Johny's intention and good faith on trial.  IMO, his
intention is irrelevant.  He either acknowledges he crossed a boundary
or he does not.  Life is much simpler when I rely on people's words
and actions instead of foolishly attempting to read their minds (in an
email thread, no less).



On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
> Rachelyra posted a message yesterday which said something like "if i don't
> like any off-list messages i receive, then i will share them on-list". That
> does NOT mean "don't message me off-list".
>
> My message to Rachelyra was in support of her proposal that Board decisions
> be unanimous (ie Consensus). I enjoyed reading rachelyra's posts yesterday--
> her sense of humor and creative use of language amused me. My message to her
> was written, i intended, in the same good-humored vein.
>
> I never claimed the her quote of me was a lie, i don't know where she's
> getting that. M
> y note to her, "I hope you don't like this message so that you share it
> on-list" was a tongue-in-cheek response to her warning above: "if i don't
> like any off-list messages i receive, then i will share them on-list". My
> meaning was "Rachel, you and i agree on this Board process issue, so feel
> free to share my sentiments with the list." I guess tongue-in-cheek is
> easily misunderstood, tho since Rachel is a superb sarcasticist, i figured
> she would get it. Guess not.
>
> I felt Rachel was friendly toward me at Noisebridge, because she got me
> stoned. That's not "rude".
>
> I'll be away from the list for a few days or more, so anyone can message me
> off-list if you so desire.
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "rachel lyra hospodar" <rachelyra at gmail.com>
>
> 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."
>
> 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>.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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