Le jeudi 27 février 2020, 16:27:57 CET Ruben Safir a écrit :
> Frankly, this entire email is a lie.
No you can’t say that.
> It is very subtle,
Yes it is. For that subtle fact: this mail doesn’t contain anything
factually false. So it’s not a lie, and doesn’t even necessarily contains
lies. The only things I could doubt on are motivations (or rather: their
evolution), which are both: a) unprovable and b) not to be speculated on.
However even here, whatever my doubt, I can’t possibly imagine there’s not
at least a part of truth in it. Because it is hard to have friends, or at
least colleagues, cosupporters of same views, etc. being hurt and not
having an issue with that.
> but it an
> example as to why you receive such a strong push back. You are NOT
> honest and your motivations [further speculation]
Since it is subtle, you’d better analyse it further and comment it in a
less easy-to-withdraw manner. And when it’s too difficult… well don’t. If
something is “too subtle” it likely doesn’t have *yet* the easy
consequences you’d like to criticize. So wait for them to appear, and
keep privately, and kindly, your reservations. Stay on a “I can’t explain
why, but reading XXX, I don’t trust him…”, never more. And preferably say
that when it’s appropriated to say (when a friend of yours asks you, or
when there’s a public consultation, and only *once* without repetition).
If you had to get angry, do that in front of someone that would understand
and stand it.
> > I am very sorry for this. And I apologize because I was one of the
> > people who suggested people discuss things on this list.
>
> The use of the term "things" here is a lie and newspeak.
No, it is a general term. People can be lazy. They also can be lazy to
purport theirs opponent’s views, but there’s no way using the word “thing”
for anything is exagerated. It is only imprecise, but then precize
yourself. People are allowed to be lazy, if they’re not sure what they’re
talking about (make suggestions, instead of accusations).
> What you suggested is that since you have two supporters moderating this
> list,
They don’t have anymore, they regret that actually. So you,re wrong.
> [same accusations as always] are the "things" you decided to do.
This was obvious. Nobody is stupid. You can use different terms as them
for what, because of differing viewpoints, yet everybody understand them to
refer the same thing.
> > In hindsight suggesting this list was a terrible recommendation
> > and I realize now that I put some people, who just wanted to discuss
> > what they love about being GNU, through a lot of pain.
> It was never your intention to discuss what you "love about being GNU".
I think it could.
> What there has been a discussion about has been the creation of a domain
> that claims it represents GNU
That was likely *after* they decided the list wasn’t as fit as it was
initially.
> At no time has there been any discussion of what we love about GNU,
They were distracted, likely. By opposition. Not necessarily yours. But
maybe without non-GNU people they would have more talked about GNU.
> > I am very sorry
> > for that.
>
> Save me the crocodile tears. Your efforts made RMS homeless for a
> period of time.
No they weren’t there at that time. It was the consequences of MIT
people. These people aren’t MIT people. Don’t conflate accusations like
the people you hate did with rms. I’m sure he wouldn’t like that as well.
Also because he’s more reasonable.
> > I am certainly not recommending people make themselves a
> > target by publicly posting to this list anymore.
>
> Your hostile effort to take over GNU will be resisted by people of fine
> moral character and real concern for the freedoms it strives to protect
> no matter where you attempt to destroy GNU.
Harassment, insults, etc. aren’t “resistance”. And behaving by repetition
demonstrate the opposite of “concern”.
> > I have heard from various people they felt intimidated both by
> > reactions on the list, some by fellow GNU participants and from
> > outsiders sending them some of the most offensive email they ever
> > received.
>
> Since you have a pattern of lying, I chose not to believe that without
> proof.
Do you know Okham’s razor? Hanlon’s razor? First postulate incapacity,
before to postulate malevolence. You’re not the only violent party. And
you could as well consider people are more affected by what you write than
you think. And yet, because they believe to be right, they could keep
doing it yet being affected and even hurt by you. Because it is noway
related.
> Granted
> though, I grew up in the deep ghetto of East New York, Brooklyn and not
> some lillywhite ivy league town, so my sensibilities aren't yours. When
> I was a teen-ager, people were shot dead on the street for an argument
> over a nickle bag.
Does it still nowadays? With time, and economical development, violence
decreases
