Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts
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
Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts
Final answer to the Social Contract Question from Phil Maker 1. Since I've only got two options (:-)) I choose "I do not adhere" which should be read as after a bit of investigation and time wasting that this is a very bad idea. Every rock you lift up has something under it (who, why, how, ). I'm with RMS on this. 2. Feel free to publish my name as a dissident. This is to suggest I disagree is fine, but to suggest I not adhere to some of your standards would be unfortunate. Using the word dissident is fine. Have a good one. On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 9:14 AM Brian.Tiffin wrote: > > 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 > > > -- Phil Maker email: phoneemail: -- email to phone (fastest) phone: +61 (0)447 630 229 "Think on this doctrine, that reasoning beings were created for one another's sake; that to be patient is a branch of justice, and that men sin without intending it" -- Marcus Aurelius
Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts
On 2020-02-15 10:10, Andreas Enge wrote: thanks for thinking about the options and sharing your opinion! Speaking strictly logically, a third option is not possible "If you're not with us, you're against us, comrade." You may wanna brush up on logic, there, buddy. It's quite a broad field, you know; there is a lot more to it than first order predicates that have only true and false values.
Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts
Hello Phil, On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 09:28:56AM +0930, Phil Maker wrote: > 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. thanks for thinking about the options and sharing your opinion! Speaking strictly logically, a third option is not possible - but of course people may not feel strongly either way, so socially speaking, there are probably tons of options (including differentiated opinions on the different points of the GNU Social Contract, supporting some points, but not others). I do not think, however, that we should record all potential replies in detail, as this would just blur everything. I would say that if you do not support any of the two options, then just do not reply and do not appear under any of them in the wiki. Andreas
