Phil Maker wrote: > Ludovic, ..., > > Re the Social Contract I'm sure greater minds than mine have looked at > it but I feel obliged to make some sort of response of which the next > paragraph is the only > important one. > > Given the two options "I endorse" or "I do not adhere to" may I be bold as > to choose > the third option, i.e. no thanks, not interested, neither answer is > acceptable to me. > Please be so kind as to record that somewhere and if you make any public > lists of > responses it would be nice to put that in. > > Totally agree with Phil on this one. I voted no on even holding these discussions in a public area, months ago now. Still don't want to take part.
So, you'll find my imaginary non endorsement tucked inside my letter to Santa. If that sounds like an unkind swipe, it is. I have no inclination to think that any, ANY, of these current modes of communication are well intended; responses will not be veiled as well intended or kind. Akin to when you may have to slap someone in the face when they are risking themselves and others in a state of panic. Sowing discontent with a polite smile is not good, it smacks of evil and willful ignorance. I'll add that I'd like to be removed from any further imaginary fair-use of the email address that was scraped from fencepost, Ludovic. Make that removal real, please. You were not given my permission for use of that information for that purpose. And now you are given an explicit demand to cease and desist. The fact that that information might happen to match what I may have exposed on gnu-misc-discuss and other lists is irrelevant. Cease and desist usage for those imaginary purposes. Personally speaking, there is no i in my concept of team GNU. There is "me", Richard Stallman and those he deems worthy of the Gnuisance moniker. This us versus them wedge is imaginary; the fallout and after effects are and will be real, and in my opinion, damagingly so. Have good, make real
