On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > There have been many posts over the past two weeks [...] based on > little but veneration.
> Your own emails are always carefully considered Thanks for confirming it. Now, you were responding to me, not to the other posters. As usual among RMS critics (see?, I've made an effort to resist the unkindness of de-venerators), he, and apparently now me too, are somehow held responsible for actions of others, just because they seem to support some position you disagree with. That's not right. I wouldn't say people who undersigned a hate letter full of lies have lied themselves. Those who have been misled did not lie, even if the words they honestly believed in were false, whatever it was that got them to believe them. Similarly, people who support a position you disagree with are not pawns in an army of brainless creatures guided by your favorite monster. They are independent individuals with very different beliefs and motivations who, for their own reasons, formulated their own theories as to why people have fallen for such lies, or used them as levers to promote actions where other not-so-shocking truths failed before. Remember how much hate RMS got in glibc land for something I did? I said I did it out of my own volition, I explained my why I did it, but people wouldn't believe he had nothing to do with it! That's what I'm talking about. It's the same undeserved hatred that he got from Nathan for his assumption that delays had something to do with RMS's interference. Even when he explicitly disapproves actions by misguided supporters, he still gets hate over their actions. Does that sound reasonable to you? As in, do you agree to be held responsible for any speech or action by anyone who happens to be favorable to the libstdc++ fork you are proposing right now? I didn't think so. I hereby invoke the golden rule. >> If you find any offense in the previous paragraph, you understand >> exactly why I feel offended by your retort, so please try to take that >> into account in your attempts to participate in a kind debate. > Kind debate. Right. You were addressing me, and I responded to that. Have *I* been unkind in the debate I'm carrying out with you? If you wish to lump me together with everyone else to whom you attribute the same position that I hold, do you acknowledge that I'd be entitled to hold you to a similar standard, and lump you with the shills and liars behind a hate letter that failed a decapitation attack, but may have partially succeeded at a divide-and-conquer attack on our movement? > the requests to make changes to GCC are coming from outsiders who are only > too happy to insult GCC devs and derail any "debate". Some of the voices in favor of making changes have also come from outsiders to GCC. Did I miss your objections to their contributing their outsiders' thoughts, or to their unkindness? -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
