[Noisebridge-discuss] Rachel's language

Callme Whatiwant nejucomo at gmail.com
Mon Mar 31 23:48:21 UTC 2014


On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
> PS, respecting other people's boundaries is extremely important to me. If
> your reading of Discuss was more than "scant", you'd see that i have had the
> integrity to apologize publicy for past errs.
>

Ah!  I'm relieved to see you say respecting boundaries is important.
(This isn't sarcasm.)  If you had said that *first* then I probably
would have felt much less annoyed.

If the message said: "Wow, I didn't realize I crossed a boundary, and
respecting boundaries is extremely important to me.  I'm pretty angry
after being insulted publicly when I'm not even clear what the
boundary I crossed is.  Could you please clarify the boundary I
crossed and refrain from calling me names in the future?"

-then I would have been totally on board.

I can see now, in retrospect, how annoying is might feel for me to pop
out of nowhere and criticize your speech.  I didn't intend to just
pile on thoughtlessly, but rather I just thought explaining why, as an
outsider, this thread frustrated me it could be informative.  Does
that help you understand where I'm coming from, or is it still
annoying?


>
>
>>  Dear C. Whatiwant,
>>
>> I can only base my understanding of others' boundaries upon what they
>> STATE their boundaries are. If Rachel had stated "Do not message me off-list
>> anyone", then i would gladly acknowledge that i crossed that boundary. She
>> did NOT say that. Therefor, on what basis did I cross a boundary? Where did
>> Rachel explicitly state that boundary? Please link me to her
>> boundary-statement. If you provide evidence that I crossed her boundary, i
>> will gladly acknowlege it.
>>

Ok, so you don't want to acknowledge crossing a boundary without
knowing explicitly knowing what it is.  Right?

Does this mean if Rachel had described the boundary more clearly (and
let's also imagine she didn't insult you by calling you a "gnat") then
you would have easily acknowledged that?

I guess that even if someone isn't clear about what their boundary is,
and doesn't specify their boundary ahead of time, if the response is
"I acknowledge I crossed your boundary, even though I did not / do not
know what it is." -this does not bother me, but if the response is
"check your language, what I did was reasonable, you didn't tell me
your boundary ahead of time" I find it annoying at the least.

I am on board with you that Rachel wasn't clear in *that* email [1]
what her boundary was, although it was quite clear to me it had been
crossed.  As I said before, I find that calling you "a gnat of a
person" doesn't give me confidence that she'll communicate her
boundaries well to me in the future and shows a lack of respect for
you.

>> Btw, C. Whatiwant-- you just messaged Rachel off-list, as her email
>> address is in your TO list.
>>

Oops!  I didn't intend to do that.  It looks like Rachel clarified her
preference in a later post [2].  I don't perceive my email as private
or harassing, but I hope anyone feels comfortable to tell me when I
cross any of their boundaries.

[1] https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-March/043274.html

[2] https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-March/043343.html


>> -jr
>>
>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list