On Mar 30, 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide <phdoftheho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Taking the correction into account
*nod*
> What you've presented here is your word ("This
> accusation is outright false, beyond any possible doubt."),
True, I didn't claim to be offering evidence, and that didn't seem
necessary since all the supporting evidence you'd brought was hearsay.
I can't link to the message that is presumably removed, and I suppose I
could get permission to share the email in which he issued the request,
but please be honest: would you believe it?
> they were NOT allowed to attack people like this and go this far and
> being banned by moderation, RMS taking explicit actions to UNDO that
> moderation and explicitly, in the internal mailing list, state
> (paraphrased): 'I have put a new moderator in. Have at it.'
This description suggests we're not even talking about the same events.
My description was about a doxxing web site/email posted no more than a
week ago.
Your description appears to resemble events of 2019: the illegitimate
censorious moderation that was imposed on a GNU mailing list, against
GNU and mailing list policies, after someone abused their autonomy to
grant moderation privileges to a group that started suppressing views
they disagreed with, while allowing personal attacks they supported to
go through. List rules were restored and censorship ceased with the
legitimate installation of a larger group of moderators with more
diverse stances, that applied list rules and blocked inappropriate posts
while allowing through civil criticism on all sides. Richard was
criticized for insisting on enabling the debate to carry on, but he
insisted on the principled stance of free speech, and then some, to
allow for what some perceived as personal attacks against him.
Now, you appear to believe a very different interpretation of these
facts. I can't imagine that showing public posts will prove anything,
since the difference is in the interpretation and attribution of
motivations and allegiances, rather than on facts. As law and history
have taught us, proving innocence or honesty are often impossible tasks;
it is the burden of the accuser to offer enough evidence to sustain an
accusation, and all you've brought is hearsay. Popular, widespread
hateful hearsay, but still hearsay.
> where someone who was already banned
No such thing happened. That's yet another distortion.
There was an attempt to attach shocking labels to an honest man.
The labels failed to stick, though some people still believe them.
Part of the problem is the reasoning that, if so many people are
parroting the same false allegations, there must be truth to them.
When any one of them is proven wrong, with the great effort required to
overcome preconceptions, the goal post is moved onto all of the others
that appear to remain, because the preconceptions still mistake them for
granted, and the accused remains guilty for having taken multiple shots.
That's not the way civilizations have long carried out justice.
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer
Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
