On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:54 AM Michael Christopher Robinson <
michae...@charter.net> wrote:
> First off, I think too much has been said and a lot of it is troubling.
> Partially and undeniably because Richard Stallman is a hard person for many
> folks to relate to. I've never met him, but I've known for a long time
> that he has a really bad reputation as an anti social individual. I've
> known about his bad reputation since before January 1, 2000. I am
> concerned that nobody posting on this list should purposely insult anyone
> else posting on this list or even someone off list as if that is an
> acceptable thing to do. I must definitely ask, what if Richard Stallman
> has been posting on this list and has been in these discussions? Should
> anything you post on this list about Richard Stallman be anything you
> wouldn't say to his face, especially if you have been unknowingly
> indirectly communicating with him through this list? If everyone wants
> Richard Stallman to be less anti social, then we all need to avoid directly
> telling Richard Stallman in an unhelpful way that he is anti social. If he
> is using an alias and posting to this list, he is in these discussions and
> he is potentially reading them. Shouldn't everyone who is concerned about
> Richard Stallman want him to become less anti social and shouldn't we all
> be open to encouraging Richard Stallman to be less anti social? Instead of
> supporting this idea that Stallman is a huge jerk etcetera by echoing it
> myself, I don't want the group conversation anywhere on any mailing list or
> beyond mailing lists even to be against any person let alone in a tone that
> wouldn't help that person do better if they need to. The problem with
> calling anyone a bully on an email list is that the "bully" might see that
> and become more of a bully because of it. The goal of a group of concerned
> people about another specific person should always be to encourage that
> person to personally improve in the area of legitimate concern. The group
> cannot force this person to change, especially if the group is wrong that
> the person even should change this personal aspect of him/herself. Tyranny
> of the majority is never a good thing, neither is Richard Stallman's
> reputation as an anti social individual. This tyranny of the majority
> problem by the way is why the President of the United States is supposed to
> be elected by the electoral college and NOT democratically. The states
> indeed only elect electors to the electoral college. Still matters how
> legitimate the votes in that state are, but the POTUS is not elected by the
> people directly and never has been.
>
Re: TYRANNY versus LIBERTY. For the republic, if we can keep it. Yes, in
theory. That's only as good as the folks who are actually appointed to
uphold said BoR, etc. As they say, " people is policy." Do we still have
that republic? And I do not mean the 'R' after a politician's name. If we
can keep it; which I'm afraid we've been poor stewards indeed at keeping
anything resembling the republic. It's the reason why Trump, for instance,
could claim "take the guns first then due process", or "involuntary
confinement", or "gotta get their shots", and a whole litany of 170
betrayals of his campaign promises. Just another cog in the wheel that's
turning over the republic today. But... I digress, sir.
__
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
>
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
