On 17/07/2011 21:58, Stan Goodman wrote:
On
07/17/2011 11:20 PM, Moish wrote:
On 17/07/2011 20:39, geoffrey mendelson
wrote:
On Jul 17, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Mordecha Behar wrote:
Hey, I'm not saying we should sue, I'm
just saying it's an option. And not a good one.
We will alienate ourselves in the worldwide community of
open software, and probably burn several bridges which will
be very hard to rebuild.
I too resent the whole idea of mixing computer science and
politics. It makes the whole thing stink like unwashed feet.
I'm just a little disappointed that the whole saga unraveled
like this. I had higher opinions of RMS before this.
This pretty much says that he is supporting a boycott and that
it's fsf.org's policy. IMHO he should be sued. I'm not going
to do it, but if I were presented with a poll or petition
would say so.
If he did not want to be offensive or politicize himself or
the fsf, he could of said "So I decided to not offend
anyone.." but he did not he said that "decided to follow
... the boycott".
To toss out some ad homynms, he's a blight on free speech and
free software and he and his fsf have outlived their
usefulness. He has crossed the line over which he should never
cross, mixing free software with support of terrorists.
Geoff.
Ad Hominem and Ad Rem:
Have some of you gone mad ?!
Gagging, prosecution, do i hear execution ?
Perhaps he's an hypocrite
feeble-minded-self-hating-jewish-leftists, a member of J
street, or god forbidden, a liberal, SO WHAT?
BLOCKING free speech! How DARE you! Have you lost your mind !?
Arguably, he alone (in concert with his Palestinian hosts), is the
one limiting free speech. Nobody here has intimated that he can't
voice his views, whatever they are, although there was some talk
about expressing them in the name of FSF. The discussion has
nothing whatever to dowith free speech.
The fact is, by the way, that the right of free speech has nothing
to do with individuals at all, but is entirely a fence against
government. The government of a free country may not forbid
_expression_ of protected speech (there are limitations to that as
well). Individuals or groups are certainly not obligated to
listen. You can't holler "free speech" if somebody insists upon
telling you his views that you don't want to hear. The only
free-speech issue that would arise in connection with Stallman
would be if the Government should forbid or punish him for
expressing them.
The quotations above, beginning with "Ad hominem" and ending with
"Have you lost your mind!?" were written by someone who never sat
in a Civics class, and who has only the foggiest notion of what
"free speech" actually means.
So, free speech has nothing to do with individuals? well, isn't
you right of free speech allows you to say
that I only the foggiest notion of "free speech"?
Oh my oh my, and I expected gushing intelect and shrewd arguments.
And that's the end of me trolling :)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
1ad ho·mi·nem
adj \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Definition of AD HOMINEM
1
:
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
:
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character
rather than by an answer to the contentions made
ad rem
adv or adj \(ˌ)ad-ˈrem\
Definition of AD REM
: to
the point or purpose : relevantly
--
Moish
___
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
