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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#146367 — OT: Richard Mathew Stallman

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.

The reason seems to be an email thread, where he tried to defend his 
friend Mervin Minsky, an AI researcher that died in 2016, from the 
accusations of a girl involved in the epstein scandal.

The girl says in her testiomony that Mrs Maxwell ( the woman that found 
the girls for epstein) had instructed her to have sex with Mervin Minsky.

Stallman argued that that doesn't mean that Minsky was aware that the 
girl was forced by epstein, assuming that minsky and the girl had sex.

That email was deformed by the press into: "Stallman says that the girl 
was willing", what led to his resignation from the mit and the fsf.

Stallman is a dead man now, socially.

Note that Stallman is not accused of having sex with an underage girl, 
nor of any actual wrong behaviour. He just said that maybe Minsky wasn't 
aware that the girl was forced into sex. He acknowledged that the girl 
suffered and he never said that she was willing, it is just that Minsky 
could have been unaware that she was being forced!

Actually, there wasn't any sex between Minsky and that girl, according 
to the physicist Gregory Benford, that reports that Minsky turned her 
down: Minsky was 73, and the girl 17... Besides, in her testimony the 
girl says that she had been instructed to have sex with Minsky, not that 
she actually did it.

Personally I find the attacks against Mr Stallman completely out of 
proportion. It can be argued that it is not very clever to defend Minsky 
saying that he could be unaware that a 17 year old wants to have sex 
with a 73 year old man just because she wants to. But this opinion can 
lead to a critic of Stallman or to a demand for excuses (what Stallman 
did) but to destroy completely someone it is so OUT OF PROPORTION that I 
wonder what is behind this.

Corporate contributor to the FSF, RedHat approved the ousting 
immediately with a communiqué. There wont be any rms fooling around with 
the fsf, defending the principles of free software anymore.

And so it goes...

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

And I find the silence here deafening.

jacob

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#146369

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.  I personally contacted him via
email in April, 2012 to verify these claims made by people online, and
he affirmed those positions and even argued / debated with me over a
handful of emails on those points as I tried to teach him the Biblical
view.

It was for that sole reason I did not go forward with my prior plans
to complete the GNU HURD kernel, and instead focused my time and atten-
tion on the Liberty Software Foundation and its Village Freedom Project.
LibSF has recently been renamed 3Alive, but has the same goals as before.

-----
RMS is a difficult individual.  Brilliant.  Visionary.  But he has very
specific views on a great many things, and some of them are flatly un-
holy, improper both socially and morally, and he had already distanced
himself from a great many people by his other quirks.  I've heard from
people who tried to get him to speak at their event, for example, and
he requires such a stringent environment and various things it's amaz-
ing to me he talks anywhere.

I for one am glad he is gone.  He was THE reason I have not contributed
to GNU during all of these years since learning about him believing both
necrophilia and pedophilia should be legal (Proverbs 29:12 "If a ruler
hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked," and I would not be a part
of that organization FOR THAT REASON).

We'll see what comes of it.  Maybe someone will step up with morals and
ethics and values that aren't insane, and I'll be able to step in and
complete the GNU HURD kernel after all.  It would be nice to be able to
get rid of the negative influence of hateful-vulgar-ranter Linus Torvalds
as well.

We need things in this world which are positive, and are founded upon
the most positive things.  Men and women who are willing to look up to
God, look to the tasks before them, and do those tasks unto God, and
not just because there are tasks before them, because when you do them
only for the task's sake, you wind up taking shortcuts or making some
decisions which make it less than it should be.  When you do it for
God, you dig deep within yourself and bring forth the best you have to
offer, eliciting also the best in and from those around you, letting
each person fall on whatever side of that request they CHOOSE to side
on.

God guides all people rightly.  It is only the FALSE VIEWS of God that
keep people believing otherwise.  But for all who will SEEK THE TRUTH,
they will find it, and the truth will make them free from all the lies,
all the falseness, all the evil, all the wickedness.

Truth needs doers.  Not passer-bys.  Those who will stop, inquire, be-
come interested students seeking to learn all they can, and then to
move the entirety of their life in that direction, with all their full
time, full talents, full resources.  The one who is Truth with a capi-
tal T (that's Jesus), is worthy of nothing less.

I hope you come to see this, Jacob.  And everyone else reading this
post as well.

-- Rick C. Hodgin

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

#146371

On Friday, 27 September 2019 15:45:33 UTC+1, rick....@gmail.com  wrote:
> 
> RMS is a difficult individual.  Brilliant.  Visionary.  But he has very
> specific views on a great many things, and some of them are flatly un-
> holy, improper both socially and morally, and he had already distanced
> himself from a great many people by his other quirks.  
>
He's certainly got odd ideas. I was reluctant to get involved in the
free software foundation because of them. I don't think that Microsoft
is an evil organisation it is my duty to try to destroy by undermining
their business model. I derive my income ultimately from royalty payments
made to my employer.

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.

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

#146374

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:22:54 PM UTC-4, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, 27 September 2019 15:45:33 UTC+1, rick....@gmail.com  wrote:
> > 
> > RMS is a difficult individual.  Brilliant.  Visionary.  But he has very
> > specific views on a great many things, and some of them are flatly un-
> > holy, improper both socially and morally, and he had already distanced
> > himself from a great many people by his other quirks.  
> >
> He's certainly got odd ideas. I was reluctant to get involved in the
> free software foundation because of them. I don't think that Microsoft
> is an evil organisation it is my duty to try to destroy by undermining
> their business model. I derive my income ultimately from royalty payments
> made to my employer.

I used to hold an "all software should be free and open" viewpoint, but
I do see the need for proprietary interests given the nature of evil at
work in this world.

> 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.

I agree completely.  I'm also glad he's gone.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#146393

On 9/27/19 12:22 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, 27 September 2019 15:45:33 UTC+1, rick....@gmail.com  wrote:
>>
>> RMS is a difficult individual.  Brilliant.  Visionary.  But he has very
>> specific views on a great many things, and some of them are flatly un-
>> holy, improper both socially and morally, and he had already distanced
>> himself from a great many people by his other quirks.  
>>
> He's certainly got odd ideas. I was reluctant to get involved in the
> free software foundation because of them. I don't think that Microsoft
> is an evil organisation it is my duty to try to destroy by undermining
> their business model. I derive my income ultimately from royalty payments
> made to my employer.
> 
> 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 met RMS once in person when he talked at a meeting of an open source
project, and after that I was so turned off by some of his ideas that he
proclaimed that I decided that if he was a spokesman for the 'GNU' idea,
that I would avoid, when possible, the use of GNU licenses, on a
fundamental ideological basis.

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

#146394

On 9/28/2019 8:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> ...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.

This is a most important distinction people don't realize because
they're not taught it in school any more.  It's one of THE MOST
fundamental principles of the U.S., and it is that it's inherent
in our laws that we are to be free from government tyranny, but
that does not mean we are free from social ramifications.

The choices we make mean something.  And we must live with the
consequences of our actions (not just here btw, but also in
eternity).

> I met RMS once in person when he talked at a meeting of an open source
> project, and after that I was so turned off by some of his ideas that he
> proclaimed that I decided that if he was a spokesman for the 'GNU' idea,
> that I would avoid, when possible, the use of GNU licenses, on a
> fundamental ideological basis.

The GNU license 2.0, Copyleft, the ability to use the legal sys-
tem to effectively enforce free software, and other Stallman's
contributions to our world have been brilliant, timely, needed.
But he is so full of this other whole separate set of quirks
and character traits that it basically nullifies any of his
positive contributions.

That being said, it was this video which changed my life, and
set me on a course of understanding that I did not have before:

     Revolution OS (2001)
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vW62KqKJ5A

     A movie about Linux, but more generally, about the whole
     philosophy around open source / free software, and what
     it truly means to people in general.  It's really quite
     something, and is not just a treatise on Stallman, though
     most everyone points to him as the foundation of their
     independent goas.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#146451

Am 28.09.19 um 15:01 schrieb Rick C. Hodgin:
> On 9/28/2019 8:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> ...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.
> 
> This is a most important distinction people don't realize because
> they're not taught it in school any more.  It's one of THE MOST
> fundamental principles of the U.S., and it is that it's inherent
> in our laws that we are to be free from government tyranny, but
> that does not mean we are free from social ramifications.

An amendment to the constitution of some North American country states
"Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech".

That doesn't imply that the term "freedom of speech" has no meaning
beside restricting what government can do.

E.g., the actions of many firms which have achieved market dominance
could be similarly restrictive to freedom of speech as actions of the
government can.

> 
> The choices we make mean something.  And we must live with the
> consequences of our actions (not just here btw, but also in
> eternity).
> 
>> I met RMS once in person when he talked at a meeting of an open source
>> project, and after that I was so turned off by some of his ideas that he
>> proclaimed that I decided that if he was a spokesman for the 'GNU' idea,
>> that I would avoid, when possible, the use of GNU licenses, on a
>> fundamental ideological basis.
> 
> The GNU license 2.0, Copyleft, the ability to use the legal sys-
> tem to effectively enforce free software, and other Stallman's
> contributions to our world have been brilliant, timely, needed.
> But he is so full of this other whole separate set of quirks
> and character traits that it basically nullifies any of his
> positive contributions.

How could they nullify his contributions? Without the GPL and free
software, the world would be quite different today (and the struggle for
software freedom is ongoing).
I am not aware of that "whole separate set of quirks and character
traits" having any noticeable impact on the world. The vast majority of
those that know about of care about free software probably have never
heard of Stallman's ideas on other topics.

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

#146458

On 9/30/2019 1:10 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> Am 28.09.19 um 15:01 schrieb Rick C. Hodgin:
>> On 9/28/2019 8:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> ...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.
>>
>> This is a most important distinction people don't realize because
>> they're not taught it in school any more.  It's one of THE MOST
>> fundamental principles of the U.S., and it is that it's inherent
>> in our laws that we are to be free from government tyranny, but
>> that does not mean we are free from social ramifications.
> 
> An amendment to the constitution of some North American country states
> "Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech".
> 
> That doesn't imply that the term "freedom of speech" has no meaning
> beside restricting what government can do.
> 
> E.g., the actions of many firms which have achieved market dominance
> could be similarly restrictive to freedom of speech as actions of the
> government can.

That's a separate issue that has yet to be addressed by our U.S.
government, short of discrimination for various qualities / traits.

>> The choices we make mean something.  And we must live with the
>> consequences of our actions (not just here btw, but also in
>> eternity).
>>
>>> I met RMS once in person when he talked at a meeting of an open source
>>> project, and after that I was so turned off by some of his ideas that he
>>> proclaimed that I decided that if he was a spokesman for the 'GNU' idea,
>>> that I would avoid, when possible, the use of GNU licenses, on a
>>> fundamental ideological basis.
>>
>> The GNU license 2.0, Copyleft, the ability to use the legal sys-
>> tem to effectively enforce free software, and other Stallman's
>> contributions to our world have been brilliant, timely, needed.
>> But he is so full of this other whole separate set of quirks
>> and character traits that it basically nullifies any of his
>> positive contributions.
> 
> How could they nullify his contributions? Without the GPL and free
> software, the world would be quite different today (and the struggle for
> software freedom is ongoing).

There was an episode of Star Trek: Voyager which dealt with this to
some degree.  A Cardassian hologram program was called up to help
The Doctor find a treatment to remove an organism from B'Elanna.
The hologram program's research proved invaluable, but the hologram
was a representation of a real person who did real medical studies
on people that were horrible.  Ultimately the cure was used the one
time to save B'Elanna, but in the end the hologram was deleted so
that research could never be used again.

You have to look at the body of work from an individual.  Even if
a man in prison were to solve the deepest mysteries of theoretical
physics, you wouldn't want to just accept his work and use it be-
cause it comes from a negative source.

With Stallman, he proposes such unethical and immoral things that
I will discount everything he does with regards to my seeking to
contribute to his GNU Project's work.

> I am not aware of that "whole separate set of quirks and character
> traits" having any noticeable impact on the world. The vast majority of
> those that know about of care about free software probably have never
> heard of Stallman's ideas on other topics.

Correct.  Most people don't even care to know.  I didn't care to
know.  I was looking to use my spare time to contribute to this
world positively.  I wanted to go to the GNU HURD kernel, which
was functional but still buggy, and finish developing it, work
out all the bugs.  I was actually very excited about the prospect
as it would've been a competing kernel to Linux.  I had plans to
scrape Linux open source drivers and create tools which would
help other developers write GNU HURD drivers for it, etc.

I began doing research about GNU, its history, about the projects
for the various flavors of the kernel over the years, and some-
where in there in my research, in April 2012, I found out about
Stallman's views on pedophilia and necrophilia.  I wasn't content
to believe what I had read online so I emailed him and asked him
about it.  Over several email he affirmed and defended his posi-
tion, and also told me not to work on the GNU HURD kernel because
we (the free software world) already had a good kernel in Linux,
and that I should work on writing Adobe Acrobat-compatible code
to the free world, or some other useful project like that.

It took me from that time in April thru to early July to sort out
what I wanted to do with my time, and that's when I began a God-
fearing alternative to the Free Software Foundation and GNU Project
with what was the Liberty Software Foundation and later became the
Village Freedom Project.

I devoted the entirety of my life to that task at that time, and
have developed several applications relating to it.  I have plans
to construct my own kernel, which will be an OS/2 off-shoot, and
all that goes with it.

In any event, what a person does in their life matters.  You do
have to look at the whole man, including repentance, including
new directions, etc.  We are the sum total of our existence, but
our current attitude and where we're going really does matter.

That's not to say you discount anyone.  I would help Richard
(personally, not his project) if he asked me, for example.  And
if he asked me for programming advice for his project I would
probably help him as well.  But until he changes his personal
views and goals for things in this life, I will not be devoting
my time to his creation.

One-on-one personal interactions, you always help people.  But
with regards to movements, political ideas, business interests
which are against God's guidance, you shun them.  You advise
against them, etc.

It's a proper view to have, to focus your attention up to God
and His guidance first, and then to move forward.

Jesus, for example, help individuals, warning them to go and sin
no more.  But He wouldn't participate in their sinful activities.
It is the same for all people in this world, for we are all per-
sonally called to Him, and to be as He taught us.  But we like-
wise are not to participate in the sinful things in this world,
those things that are against God and His teachings.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#146480

On 01/10/2019 06:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> 
> You have to look at the body of work from an individual.  Even if
> a man in prison were to solve the deepest mysteries of theoretical
> physics, you wouldn't want to just accept his work and use it be-
> cause it comes from a negative source.

So you would refuse surgery if the surgeon consulted Pernkopf 
Topographic Anatomy of Man?  Ethics is a complex subject with many 
shades of grey...

-- 
Ian.

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

#146491

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 11:24:33 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 01/10/2019 06:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > 
> > You have to look at the body of work from an individual.  Even if
> > a man in prison were to solve the deepest mysteries of theoretical
> > physics, you wouldn't want to just [blindly] accept his work and use it be-
> > cause it comes from a negative source.  [There are factors to consider
> > before accepting it (if at all)].
> 
> So you would refuse surgery if the surgeon consulted Pernkopf 
> Topographic Anatomy of Man?  Ethics is a complex subject with many 
> shades of grey...

Fixed it for clarification of my intended meaning.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#146478

On 9/30/19 1:10 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> Am 28.09.19 um 15:01 schrieb Rick C. Hodgin:
>> On 9/28/2019 8:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> ...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.
>>
>> This is a most important distinction people don't realize because
>> they're not taught it in school any more.  It's one of THE MOST
>> fundamental principles of the U.S., and it is that it's inherent
>> in our laws that we are to be free from government tyranny, but
>> that does not mean we are free from social ramifications.
> 
> An amendment to the constitution of some North American country states
> "Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech".
> 
> That doesn't imply that the term "freedom of speech" has no meaning
> beside restricting what government can do.

It does, however, mean that our First Amendment rights protect our
freedom of speech only from abridgment by the government. "Freedom of
Speech" can indeed have other meanings (for some people, for instance,
it means that everyone has the "Freedom" to speak the "Truth", and only
the "Truth", with some official authority determining what the "Truth"
is that you're "Free" to speak). However, those other meanings don't
have the force of the US Constitution behind them.

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

#146398

On Saturday, 28 September 2019 13:53:41 UTC+1, Richard Damon  wrote:
> 
> 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.
>
The ability to advocate an action is a prerequisite for the ability to
take an action. But the ability to advocate for an action that is
currently illegal, without question as to the advocator's respect
for the law, is a prerequisite for democratic lawmaking. If Stallman
believes in weird sexual practices which are currently illegal, he
must be able to argue for changing the law.

Now the government is the major source of power, so we need to protect
free speech from governments. But there are also other sources of power.
The bigger an organisation is and the more dominant it is in the
marketplace, the more we need to ensure that it isn't restricting 
the free speech of its employees, customers, or suppliers, except
as is genuinely necessary for its business. Facebook employees shouldn't
necessarily be allowed to post anti-Zuckerberg messages on Facebook,
but they should be allowed to post messages in support of President 
Trump. A tiny messaging service, OK, you could reasonably say it is
open only to left wing people, and Trump supporters aren't welcome. 
>
> I met RMS once in person when he talked at a meeting of an open source
> project, and after that I was so turned off by some of his ideas that he
> proclaimed that I decided that if he was a spokesman for the 'GNU' idea,
> that I would avoid, when possible, the use of GNU licenses, on a
> fundamental ideological basis.
>
I'm also concerned by his views. But I am also concerned by this 
massive over-reaction to his comments on Mervin Minsky.  

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

#146400

Le 28/09/2019 à 21:37, Malcolm McLean a écrit :
> I'm also concerned by his views. But I am also concerned by this
> massive over-reaction to his comments on Mervin Minsky.

Mervin Minsky and Mr Stallman had close ties.

Mr Minsky died in 2016, he can't defend himself.

Mr Stallman, that knew Mr Minsky, couldn't imagine that Mr Minsky forced 
a teenage girl. And he tried to figure up an explanation.

That was unnecessary since Gregory Benford, a physicist, was also with 
Minsky at that island and saw that the girl tried to have sex with Mr 
Minsky and that Mr Minsky REFUSED. This was apparently unknown to Mr 
Stallman.

Note that the girl said that she was instructed to have sex with Mr 
Minsky. She never said she actually did it. Mr Minsky was 72 and the 
girl 17 at that time.

Mr Stallman was isolated, an easy target, with his weird opinions, his 
politically extreme ideas (he supported the green party, was concerned 
about the environment, supported Amnesty International and many other 
completely extremist views...)

He is the victim of an aliance of all the bigots against him, and also a 
victim of all the people that should have supported him and remained silent.

Never tried to defend a friend?

No?

Then I am sorry for you.

jacob

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

#146595

On 9/28/2019 10:06 PM, jacobnavia wrote:
> Le 28/09/2019 à 21:37, Malcolm McLean a écrit :
>> I'm also concerned by his views. But I am also concerned by this
>> massive over-reaction to his comments on Mervin Minsky.
> 
> Mervin Minsky and Mr Stallman had close ties.
> 
> Mr Minsky died in 2016, he can't defend himself.
> 
> Mr Stallman, that knew Mr Minsky, couldn't imagine that Mr Minsky forced 
> a teenage girl. And he tried to figure up an explanation.
> 
> That was unnecessary since Gregory Benford, a physicist, was also with 
> Minsky at that island and saw that the girl tried to have sex with Mr 
> Minsky and that Mr Minsky REFUSED. This was apparently unknown to Mr 
> Stallman.
> 
> Note that the girl said that she was instructed to have sex with Mr 
> Minsky. She never said she actually did it. Mr Minsky was 72 and the 
> girl 17 at that time.
> 
> Mr Stallman was isolated, an easy target, with his weird opinions, his 
> politically extreme ideas (he supported the green party, was concerned 
> about the environment, supported Amnesty International and many other 
> completely extremist views...)
> 
> He is the victim of an aliance of all the bigots against him, and also a 
> victim of all the people that should have supported him and remained 
> silent.

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, 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.

I don't see the argument from RMS as acceptable from an ethical 
viewpoint. And ethics do matter if you are the president of a foundation 
that makes ethics, social values etc. a primary goal of its statute.

It is also possible that this was the proverbial last straw (as an 
example beside the many reported in this thread, last year RMS had some 
flamed correspondence with several glibc maintainers where he pushed to 
keep abortion as a subject for a joke in glibc documentation - to the 
point that some started considering a fork), still it doesn't make him a 
victim.
I agree with those who think that he was posing a threat to the message 
of freedom advocated by the FSF.

> 
> Never tried to defend a friend?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then I am sorry for you.

As I said, this has nothing to do with Mr. Minsky's defense, it has all 
to do with the argument brought up by RMS.

> 
> jacob

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

#146599

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.

I do not wish to continue this off-topic thread, but I can't help
pointing out obvious disinformation.

/Jorgen

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

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

#146605

On 10/5/2019 11:00 AM, 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?
> 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.

This is gross.

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

#146619

On 05/10/2019 22:38, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/5/2019 11:00 AM, 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?
>> 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.
> 
> This is gross.

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter, and what you personally 
think about sex between people of such different ages.  (Let's stress 
again that as far as we know, there was no sex, so this is all 
hypothetical in this particular case.)

However, accusations of "sexual assault" are about the law, not personal 
opinions.  I don't know about the law in the USA - or even if this 
private island is under USA jurisdiction, but in many countries the 
minimum legal age for sexual consent is 16 (and I never heard of a 
maximum legal age of consent).  Thus as long as there is mutual consent 
and no coercion, there is no crime in a 17 year old and a 72 year old 
having sex in most Western countries.

If there is coercion, whether by the man in question or by a third 
party, it's a different matter.  And then you get into questions about 
how much the man knew, or how much he should have surmised, when 
considering whether he was knowingly or unwittingly committing a crime. 
But that would be for courts to decide - not for gossip columns.

Any question of ethics is entirely dependent on the social norms of the 
society.  In some societies, sex between consenting participants of such 
different ages is considered their business alone, and no one else 
cares.  In some it is unacceptable.  In others, it is acceptable if they 
are married (in which case consent is probably legally assumed, whether 
it is real or not) - but if they are not married, it is viewed as a 
deadly sin.

So form the opinions you want - but be aware that they are mere 
opinions, and are personal and not universal.  If you want to judge the 
character of the people involved, at least do so based on the facts - if 
you are not sure of the facts, don't use rumours for judgements.

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

#146655

On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/10/2019 22:38, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/5/2019 11:00 AM, 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?
>>> 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.
>>
>> This is gross.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion on the matter, and what you personally 
> think about sex between people of such different ages.  (Let's stress 
> again that as far as we know, there was no sex, so this is all 
> hypothetical in this particular case.)
> 
> However, accusations of "sexual assault" are about the law, not personal 
> opinions.  I don't know about the law in the USA - or even if this 
> private island is under USA jurisdiction, but in many countries the 
> minimum legal age for sexual consent is 16 (and I never heard of a 
> maximum legal age of consent).  Thus as long as there is mutual consent 
> and no coercion, there is no crime in a 17 year old and a 72 year old 
> having sex in most Western countries.
> 
> If there is coercion, whether by the man in question or by a third 
> party, it's a different matter.  And then you get into questions about 
> how much the man knew, or how much he should have surmised, when 
> considering whether he was knowingly or unwittingly committing a crime. 
> But that would be for courts to decide - not for gossip columns.
> 
> Any question of ethics is entirely dependent on the social norms of the 
> society.  In some societies, sex between consenting participants of such 
> different ages is considered their business alone, and no one else 
> cares.  In some it is unacceptable.  In others, it is acceptable if they 
> are married (in which case consent is probably legally assumed, whether 
> it is real or not) - but if they are not married, it is viewed as a 
> deadly sin.
> 
> So form the opinions you want - but be aware that they are mere 
> opinions, and are personal and not universal.  If you want to judge the 
> character of the people involved, at least do so based on the facts - if 
> you are not sure of the facts, don't use rumours for judgements.
> 

For some reason this reminds me of the fast times at ridgemont high 
movie. The main character totally lied to a guy that looked as if he was 
in his early 20's. She said she was 19. Well, the point is to check ID 
damn it! However, 72 and a teenager, even 19? Gross! ;^o

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

#146675

On Sunday, 6 October 2019 20:43:10 UTC+1, Chris M. Thomasson  wrote:
> On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, David Brown wrote:
> > On 05/10/2019 22:38, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 10/5/2019 11:00 AM, 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?
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> This is gross.
> > 
> > You are entitled to your opinion on the matter, and what you personally 
> > think about sex between people of such different ages.  (Let's stress 
> > again that as far as we know, there was no sex, so this is all 
> > hypothetical in this particular case.)
> > 
> > However, accusations of "sexual assault" are about the law, not personal 
> > opinions.  I don't know about the law in the USA - or even if this 
> > private island is under USA jurisdiction, but in many countries the 
> > minimum legal age for sexual consent is 16 (and I never heard of a 
> > maximum legal age of consent).  Thus as long as there is mutual consent 
> > and no coercion, there is no crime in a 17 year old and a 72 year old 
> > having sex in most Western countries.
> > 
> > If there is coercion, whether by the man in question or by a third 
> > party, it's a different matter.  And then you get into questions about 
> > how much the man knew, or how much he should have surmised, when 
> > considering whether he was knowingly or unwittingly committing a crime. 
> > But that would be for courts to decide - not for gossip columns.
> > 
> > Any question of ethics is entirely dependent on the social norms of the 
> > society.  In some societies, sex between consenting participants of such 
> > different ages is considered their business alone, and no one else 
> > cares.  In some it is unacceptable.  In others, it is acceptable if they 
> > are married (in which case consent is probably legally assumed, whether 
> > it is real or not) - but if they are not married, it is viewed as a 
> > deadly sin.
> > 
> > So form the opinions you want - but be aware that they are mere 
> > opinions, and are personal and not universal.  If you want to judge the 
> > character of the people involved, at least do so based on the facts - if 
> > you are not sure of the facts, don't use rumours for judgements.
> > 
> 
> For some reason this reminds me of the fast times at ridgemont high 
> movie. The main character totally lied to a guy that looked as if he was 
> in his early 20's. She said she was 19. Well, the point is to check ID 
> damn it! However, 72 and a teenager, even 19? Gross! ;^o
>
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.

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

#146766

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!

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web