Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #146367 > unrolled thread

OT: Richard Mathew Stallman

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  OT: Richard Mathew Stallman jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-09-27 16:14 +0200
    Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-09-27 07:45 -0700
      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-09-27 09:22 -0700
        Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-09-27 09:48 -0700
        Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-09-28 08:53 -0400
          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 09:01 -0400
            Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2019-09-30 19:10 +0200
              Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 13:54 -0400
                Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-10-01 16:24 +1300
                  Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-10-01 00:34 -0700
              Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-09-30 20:46 -0400
          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 12:37 -0700
            Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-09-28 22:06 +0200
              Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-10-05 18:49 +0200
                Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-10-05 18:00 +0000
                  Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 13:38 -0700
                    Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-06 11:37 +0200
                      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 12:42 -0700
                        Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 02:19 -0700
                          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-10-08 20:14 +0200
                            Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 21:30 -0700
                              Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 22:18 -0700
                  Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-10-05 23:32 +0200
                  Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-06 06:04 -0700
          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-09-30 12:02 -0700
      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-09-27 16:31 +0000
        Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-09-27 09:50 -0700
      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 01:41 -0700
        Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-09-29 06:26 -0700
          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-09-29 07:03 -0700
        Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 23:42 -0700
          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 23:43 -0700
          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-10-02 02:13 -0700
    Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-09-27 14:58 +0000
    Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-09-27 16:30 +0000
      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-27 19:44 +0200
      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-09-30 12:28 -0700
        Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-09-30 20:09 +0000
    Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-27 10:32 -0700
      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-09-27 17:51 +0000
      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-27 21:06 +0200
      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-09-28 07:45 +0200
    Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 19:23 +0300
      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 13:15 -0400
        Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-03 18:48 +0300
          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-10-03 09:06 -0700
            Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-03 16:20 +0000
          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-03 16:19 +0000
            Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-10-03 09:24 -0700
    Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman: an exchange of emails jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-09-30 22:56 +0200
      Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman: an exchange of emails Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-09-30 21:12 +0000
        Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman: an exchange of emails jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-09-30 23:41 +0200
          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman: an exchange of emails David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 10:49 +0200
        Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman: an exchange of emails jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-09-30 23:58 +0200
          Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman: an exchange of emails Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-10-01 04:17 +0000
            Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman: an exchange of emails Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-10-04 12:52 +0000
              Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman: an exchange of emails Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-10-04 06:10 -0700
              Re: OT: Richard Mathew Stallman: an exchange of emails jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-10-04 23:58 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#146786

On 10/8/2019 11:14 AM, jacobnavia wrote:
> Le 07/10/2019 à 11:19, Malcolm McLean a écrit :
> 
>> Remember that, as far as Stallman knew, it was common ground that his
>> friend Minsky had had sex with the girl. He had to defend him on that
>> basis. It was only later that it emerged that a witness contradicted 
>> that,
>> she had tried to have sex with him, but he had refused.
>>
> 
> 1) Let's stop throwing dirt at Minsky. AT 72, he refused the advances of 
> a teen, obvious.
> 2) Stallman was never involved in child sex. He tried clumsily, granted, 
> to defend a dead friend that had always supported him at MIT.
> 3) Nobody speaks about Bill Gates, that flew with Epstein in his "teen 
> express" and has been involved in many business and charity donations to 
> MIT through Epstein.
> 4) Nobody speaks about prince Andrew Winsdor, that was directly accused 
> by the girl of having sex with her.
> 
> Of course Mr Gates and Mr Windsor are powerful people, let's attack 
> Stallman instead. He is just so an easy target!
> 

All of them... Gates, strange. I never would of thought, the lolita 
express? Well, there is this scene in South Park:

https://youtu.be/139j3c1NrF4

Reminds me of Netscape. ms-dos 13, LOL!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146787

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 9:31:11 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/8/2019 11:14 AM, jacobnavia wrote:
> > Le 07/10/2019 à 11:19, Malcolm McLean a écrit :
> > 
> >> Remember that, as far as Stallman knew, it was common ground that his
> >> friend Minsky had had sex with the girl. He had to defend him on that
> >> basis. It was only later that it emerged that a witness contradicted 
> >> that,
> >> she had tried to have sex with him, but he had refused.
> >>
> > 
> > 1) Let's stop throwing dirt at Minsky. AT 72, he refused the advances of 
> > a teen, obvious.
> > 2) Stallman was never involved in child sex. He tried clumsily, granted, 
> > to defend a dead friend that had always supported him at MIT.
> > 3) Nobody speaks about Bill Gates, that flew with Epstein in his "teen 
> > express" and has been involved in many business and charity donations to 
> > MIT through Epstein.
> > 4) Nobody speaks about prince Andrew Winsdor, that was directly accused 
> > by the girl of having sex with her.
> > 
> > Of course Mr Gates and Mr Windsor are powerful people, let's attack 
> > Stallman instead. He is just so an easy target!
> > 
> 
> All of them... Gates, strange. I never would of thought, the lolita 
> express? Well, there is this scene in South Park:
> 
> https://youtu.be/139j3c1NrF4
> 
> Reminds me of Netscape. ms-dos 13, LOL!

Bill was pretty brutal in Celebrity DeathMatch if I
remember correctly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146611

On 10/5/2019 8:00 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-10-05, Manfred wrote:
> ...
>> I didn't know about these happenings with RMS before reading this
>> thread, however after reading your messages and the original email from
>> RMS as linked by Tim Rentsch,
> 
> https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/
> 
>> I think that RMS was not a victim of
>> anyone else than himself, and by the way he was not an easy target at all.
>> I agree with you that his was an attempt to defend Mr. Minsky, but, as I
>> see it, the relevant fact here is that what came out of his pen (i.e.
>> keyboard) was not a defense, it was just a sick message.
>>
>> A sensible defense would have been, for example, that there was no
>> evidence that Mr. Minsky had actually had any sex with the girl, but
>> instead RMS wanted to assert that there would have been nothing wrong
>> (not only legally, but also ethically) with a 72 old man having a
>> relationship with a 17 years old, and with this happening on Epstein's
>> private island btw.
>> That, in my opinion, is just sick.
>> I mean, in the circumstance a sane person would ask himself: what's
>> going on here? and stop.
> 
> Did you really read the mail (linked upthread)?  Where in it does he:
> 
> 1. Defend Minsky?
It was a mail against the accusations towards Minsky, in this respect it 
was (meant to be) a defense for him.
By the way, let me make clear once again that my critics is not about 
the defense of Minsky (nothing may have happened with the girl as far as 
I know). It is about the message of RMS about the alleged scenario.

> 2. Say it's ethical for a 72-year old to have sex
>     with teenagers?
He assumed this happened and objected to the accusation by denying it 
was "assault" as long as it was consensual.
My understanding of the term "assault" in the context of underage sex is 
that it has a broad meaning that may not only cover physical violence or 
coercion, but also psychological violation of some nature, so, from this 
perspective denying such a qualification for the act would in my opinion 
also deny what is mainly unethical about it.

> 
> Let me summarize it the way I read it:
> 
> - He sets up a likely scenario: Minsky was there, the girl offered
>    sex, pretended to be willing, didn't say she was underage. They had
>    sex, and no violence was involved.
The fact that she was underage was mentioned in the report that he 
linked, but he did not say anything about it, thus not suggesting that 
the girl may have been concealing or lying about her age. Granted, in 
the scenario this might have been likely, but RMS did not state that 
Minsky could have not been aware of the age of the girl (while in fact 
this could have been another sort-of sensible defense for him, although 
the young age would have been evident). In fact, RMS wrote "Let’s 
presume that was true" after linking the report, with no exception on 
the girl's age.
To the letter of the mail, RMS's objection was stated irrespective of 
the age of the girl.
In my opinion this was a serious fault.

> 
> - He argues that the term "sexual assault" should be reserved for
>    worse acts and writes aboid "accusation inflation".
I am not a lawyer, that is why I made my point about ethics, not law, 
but in my opinion, sex with a teenager by some old person can be seen as 
"assault" even if it is consensual and with no physical violence. There 
is such a disproportion in the level of maturity and awareness that some 
level of abuse (possibly psychological) does happen anyway, I believe.

> 
> - And, that applying the term to Minsky is an "injustice".
>    He doesn't say what term should be applied instead.
I fact, I think he should have stigmatized the alleged behavior.

> 
> I do not wish to continue this off-topic thread, but I can't help
> pointing out obvious disinformation.
I don't think it was disinformation, but I agree it is off-topic.

> 
> /Jorgen
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146629

Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:

> On Sat, 2019-10-05, Manfred wrote:
> ...
>
>> I didn't know about these happenings with RMS before reading this
>> thread, however after reading your messages and the original email from
>> RMS as linked by Tim Rentsch,
>
> https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/
>
>> I think that RMS was not a victim of
>> anyone else than himself, and by the way he was not an easy target at all.
>> I agree with you that his was an attempt to defend Mr. Minsky, but, as I
>> see it, the relevant fact here is that what came out of his pen (i.e.
>> keyboard) was not a defense, it was just a sick message.
>>
>> A sensible defense would have been, for example, that there was no
>> evidence that Mr. Minsky had actually had any sex with the girl, but
>> instead RMS wanted to assert that there would have been nothing wrong
>> (not only legally, but also ethically) with a 72 old man having a
>> relationship with a 17 years old, and with this happening on Epstein's
>> private island btw.
>> That, in my opinion, is just sick.
>> I mean, in the circumstance a sane person would ask himself:  what's
>> going on here?  and stop.
>
> Did you really read the mail (linked upthread)?  Where in it does he:
>
> 1. Defend Minsky?
> 2. Say it's ethical for a 72-year old to have sex
>    with teenagers?
>
> Let me summarize it the way I read it:
>
> - He sets up a likely scenario:  Minsky was there, the girl offered
>   sex, pretended to be willing, didn't say she was underage.  They had
>   sex, and no violence was involved.
>
> - He argues that the term "sexual assault" should be reserved for
>   worse acts and writes aboid "accusation inflation".
>
> - And, that applying the term to Minsky is an "injustice".
>   He doesn't say what term should be applied instead.

My reading pretty much agrees with yours.  Stallman's email neither
condemns nor condones the supposed actions of Marvin Minsky.  The
main point of that email is that whatever language is used should
accurately reflect what (presumably) took place.  I agree with this
principle, and agree that it deserves being called out when it is
violated, which it may have been in this instance.  I also agree
with Stallman's statement that his remarks were mischaracterized.
The initial response posting to Stallman's mail clearly does this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146466

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 9/27/19 12:22 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
>> [..regarding Richard Stallman's recent departure from MIT and FSF..]
>>
>> But this sacking is concerning.  If freedom of speech is to mean anything,
>> people must be able to keep their jobs for expressing their opinions
>> on matters not directly related to their employment.
>
> Without the ability to ACT on your beliefs, the freedom of speech means
> little.  And all freedoms are limited by how they interact with other
> freedoms.  The right of Freedom of Speech says that the Government is
> restricted in its manner of imposing restrictions on speech.  It does not
> say that one is immune to natural consequences arising through the
> interactions of private individuals.  Organizations are collections of
> individuals, and those individuals still have their rights of action.

I disagree with much of what you say here.  Since the general
subject doesn't fit in comp.lang.c, I will just leave it at
that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146373

rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com writes:
>On 9/27/2019 10:14 AM, jacobnavia wrote:> rms has been ousted...[snip]

>It was for that sole reason I did not go forward with my prior plans
>to complete the GNU HURD kernel

Ah, you were just an RCH away from complete hubris.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146375

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:31:54 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com writes:
> >On 9/27/2019 10:14 AM, jacobnavia wrote:> rms has been ousted...[snip]
> 
> >It was for that sole reason I did not go forward with my prior plans
> >to complete the GNU HURD kernel
> 
> Ah, you were just an RCH away from complete hubris.

Jealous, oh two-lettered SL?  :-)

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146387

On 9/27/2019 7:45 AM, rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9/27/2019 10:14 AM, jacobnavia wrote:> rms has been ousted...[snip]
>>
>> Personally I find the attacks against Mr Stallman completely out of
>> proportion...[snip]
> 
> RMS has perverted views on a great many things.  He believes in necro-
> philia and pedophilia, for example.  

[...]

Holy Moly! Please tell me that he does NOT AGREE with horrid weirdo 
crap, like nambla!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146423

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

> On 9/27/2019 7:45 AM, [someone] wrote:
>
>> [something]
>
> Holy Moly!  Please tell me that [...]

I recommend you stop reading any further postings written by the
person you were responding to.  If you want to see what Richard
Stallman has to say about his own views, try starting here:

   https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146424

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 9:26:11 AM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On 9/27/2019 7:45 AM, [someone] wrote:
> >
> >> [something]
> >
> > Holy Moly!  Please tell me that [...]
> 
> I recommend you stop reading any further postings written by the
> person you were responding to.  If you want to see what Richard
> Stallman has to say about his own views, try starting here:
> 
>    https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html

05 June 2006 -- pedophilia:

    https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html

04 January 2013 -- pedophilia:

    https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html

28 June 2003 -- necrophilia:

    https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146522

On 9/28/2019 1:41 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/27/2019 7:45 AM, rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 9/27/2019 10:14 AM, jacobnavia wrote:> rms has been ousted...[snip]
>>>
>>> Personally I find the attacks against Mr Stallman completely out of
>>> proportion...[snip]
>>
>> RMS has perverted views on a great many things.  He believes in necro-
>> philia and pedophilia, for example. 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Holy Moly! Please tell me that he does NOT AGREE with horrid weirdo 
> crap, like nambla!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Ohhhh no... no!:

https://youtu.be/8AMHve4U3JA?t=81

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146523

On 10/1/2019 11:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/28/2019 1:41 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/27/2019 7:45 AM, rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2019 10:14 AM, jacobnavia wrote:> rms has been ousted...[snip]
>>>>
>>>> Personally I find the attacks against Mr Stallman completely out of
>>>> proportion...[snip]
>>>
>>> RMS has perverted views on a great many things.  He believes in necro-
>>> philia and pedophilia, for example. 
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Holy Moly! Please tell me that he does NOT AGREE with horrid weirdo 
>> crap, like nambla!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Ohhhh no... no!:
> 
> https://youtu.be/8AMHve4U3JA?t=81
> 
> 

South Park is hard core man! Kenny? ;^o

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146528

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 2:42:44 AM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Ohhhh no... no!:
> 
> https://youtube/ ...


Such a video is mocking what the Lord did on the cross.

It's to be shunned and rebuked, not elevated, for the
Lord is not mocked.

We were given minds and faculties to serve and honor God.

Remember that as you do the things you do.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146370

jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

> rms has been ousted from the free software foundation by a decision of 
> its governing body, as far as i know.
> 
> rms was a teacher at the MIT, where he has been forced to resign too.

F*ck both FSF and MIT.

> Personally I find the attacks against Mr Stallman completely out of 
> proportion.

Weird times we're living in... when the crazy mob just waits to lynch 
someone.

> Whatever his ideas concerning sex, nobody can deny what rms has done for 
> free software.

True. I remember when I met him in person in 2004. Smart guy.

-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146372

jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>rms has been ousted from the free software foundation by a decision of 
>its governing body, as far as i know.

That's incorrect.  He resigned, and he was correct to.

>
>rms was a teacher at the MIT, where he has been forced to resign too.

No, he was not a teacher at MIT, just a research assistent 40 years ago.



>
>Stallman is a dead man now, socially.

He was never socially adept; one generally reaps what one sows....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146377

On 27/09/2019 18:30, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>> rms has been ousted from the free software foundation by a decision of
>> its governing body, as far as i know.
> 
> That's incorrect.  He resigned, and he was correct to.
> 
>>
>> rms was a teacher at the MIT, where he has been forced to resign too.
> 
> No, he was not a teacher at MIT, just a research assistent 40 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Stallman is a dead man now, socially.
> 
> He was never socially adept; one generally reaps what one sows....
> 


It is a somewhat awkward case.  The email he wrote was certainly blown 
way out of proportion and context, but he has said and done so many 
other things over the years that he is a liability to any organisation - 
sooner or later, someone in the more mainstream media is going to dig up 
some of his old comments, and cause hell for the FSF, MIT, or him.  He 
is getting on a bit anyway, and has done what he needed to do - others 
are better suited to carry on the work he started.  He should retire 
from the limelight.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146468

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>
>> rms has been ousted from the free software foundation by a decision of
>> its governing body, as far as i know.
>
> That's incorrect.  He resigned,

Stallman himself said 

    I hereby resign as president of the Free Software Foundation
    and from its board of directors.  I am doing this due to
    pressure on the Foundation and me over a series of
    misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of what I have
    said.

To me this description fits the definition of "ousted".

> and he was correct to.

Is it something he said in his recent email that leads you to say
this, or is it something else?  In either case, what is it that
makes you think so?


>> rms was a teacher at the MIT, where he has been forced to resign too.
>
> No, he was not a teacher at MIT, just a research assistent 40 years ago.

According to recent online postings, his title at the time of his
resignation (ie, in the last month) was Visiting Scientist.


>> Stallman is a dead man now, socially.
>
> He was never socially adept;  one generally reaps what one sows....

I encourage anyone who is interested to read his original email
that started the recent controversy, which can be found here:

    https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/

and also the response posting that started the uproar about
it:

    https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794

Here is a news article for something else (an interview) that
coincidentally had been scheduled around the time things were
coming to a head:

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/17/richard_stallman_final_interview/

Also here is Stallman's blog covering the time period in question
(most of which has nothing to do with his resigning, but it is
something else I looked at so I am including it):

    https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146472

On Mon, 2019-09-30, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
...
>>> Stallman is a dead man now, socially.
>>
>> He was never socially adept;  one generally reaps what one sows....
>
> I encourage anyone who is interested to read his original email
> that started the recent controversy, which can be found here:
>
>     https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/

/That's/ the mail?  I find it very reasonable, for RMS.

But for someone like RMS to criticize that protest group, even
mildly, /that/ seems like like an unwise choice.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146376

jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
[...]
> And I find the silence here deafening.
>
> jacob

I found the silence on this topic here in comp.lang.c refreshing.
It's a pity jacob felt the need to break it.  There are plenty of
places where this would be topical.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146378

In article <lnftkh4pd0.fsf@kst-u.example.com>,
Keith Thompson  <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>[...]
>> And I find the silence here deafening.
>>
>> jacob
>
>I found the silence on this topic here in comp.lang.c refreshing.
>It's a pity jacob felt the need to break it.  There are plenty of
>places where this would be topical.

Nice to see ole Kiks back in the saddle again.

Doin' what he do best.

-- 

"If God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist."

    (Linda Smith on "10 Funniest Londoners", TimeOut, 23rd June, 2005.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web