On 6/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought I'd done rather well in responding politely to a polite > inquiry as to whether I might be a Tentacle of Evil. I think of > myself as representing forthright radicalism within the system, and if > you think about it you'll realize why the FSF's deceitful (and, in my > opinion, rather amateurish) misrepresentations of the law annoy me so > much.
I think you are correct in identifying this as the crucial issue. However, I disagree with you about your characterization of this issue. For one thing, you've used this kind of language in a number of contexts -- not simply when someone questions your motives. I can understand that having yourself be questioned leads to all sorts of implications about you as a person, but I guess that's not really what I was concerned about. I don't see FSF as being deceitful. I see them as honestly having a difference of opinion from you about the nature of the legal issues at stake. Characterizing this difference of opinion as "deceitful" implies to me that you don't think that people disagreeing with your opinion are being honest. But that would also mean that you are not being honest when you appear to be debating these issues: you'd only be providing the appearance of logical reasoning, because you would've assumed the question. I wouldn't mind so much if when you made these kinds of assertions you provided a reference to some page which clearly spells out the issues you're talking about. That way, people inclined to thinking that agreeing or disagreeing with you is important could see for themselves what it is that you're trying to say. [I'd probably mind somewhat, because I'm one of the people who thinks that agreeing or disagreeing with you on this issue is important, but presumably I'd also have factual issues that I could debate if I felt the need.] I also wouldn't mind so much if you instead simply spelled out the issue(s) on which you have a difference of opinion. But, instead, you seem to imply that your opinion has more weight than those of legal professionals, which is totally at odds with some of your disclaimers. Granted, this is merely an implication -- not something you've stated outright -- but you have indicated that you're concerned about analogous implications. If you want to be dismissed as an unthinking radical, I guess I can be talked into describing you that way, but I was under the impression that that was not at all what you are trying to achieve. Thanks, -- Raul
