tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post4843627167976069572..comments2023-09-10T07:11:42.506-07:00Comments on Open Source to Go!: Emailing Richard StallmanLeftyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537noreply@blogger.comBlogger315125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-29124582345755295422011-07-22T01:50:10.695-07:002011-07-22T01:50:10.695-07:00Hey Lefty.. I just read this article along with it...Hey Lefty.. I just read this article along with it's comments,,, you must have had a horrible time.. How are you now?Jeremehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026969216684193029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-64902041147937392332010-05-14T19:30:22.892-07:002010-05-14T19:30:22.892-07:00The way to contribute positively is to steer aroun...The way to contribute positively is to steer around personal issues with humor and get on with the job. If you don't like Emacs or the philosophy behind it create something better ;>) No one is preventing anyone.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01441752910288146583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-57107573885880697382009-12-30T05:09:54.270-08:002009-12-30T05:09:54.270-08:00I stumbled upon this gem which puts the light on a...I stumbled upon this gem which puts the light on a very important and oftenly neglected, or down-right blatantly ignored, subject within the FLOSS community.<br /><br />Thank you, keep up the good work!<br /><br /><br />All the best,<br />Peravtobiffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09702936332655249239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-54094120470723466742009-10-19T17:48:31.433-07:002009-10-19T17:48:31.433-07:00Hi.
Consider this another (belated) vote of "...Hi.<br />Consider this another (belated) vote of "I'm ashamed at this behavior and the idiots apologizing for it".<br /><br />Just wanted to point out that not everyone who has some kind of stake in FOSS is incapable of empathy AND logical argument.<br /><br />Sorry to be posting this so late on a months-old blog post.<br /><br />--Masonmasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02433162298265228584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-33590079559022843332009-10-12T16:00:32.396-07:002009-10-12T16:00:32.396-07:00Hm. Where exactly have you folks been for the past...Hm. Where exactly have you folks been for the past four months...?<br /><br />I know Michael well, have seen him present a number of times, but I've never seen him do what you're suggesting he does. Nor have I noticed "Christian imagery" to be at all "widespread in professional contexts". I'd be interested in seeing you cite some examples.<br /><br />In any case, if it should become apparent that atheists are grossly under-represented in open source development versus proprietary, as women are, then this <i>might </i>be cause for some concern, but I don't believe that to be the case. My impression, from talking to people at conferences and other places, is that a plurality, if not a majority, consider themselves "atheist", "agnostic" or "non-religious".Leftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-90849870961013919672009-10-12T14:23:16.315-07:002009-10-12T14:23:16.315-07:00The "sexism" in Stallman's remarks i...The "sexism" in Stallman's remarks is a result of Catholic sexism and its cult of virginity; Stallman was merely poking fun at that.<br /><br />As for being offensive to Christians, Meeks frequently brings up his Christianity in a professional context and draws a connection between Christian belief and free software. Christian language and imagery is also widespread in professional contexts. As an atheist, I feel quite marginalized by that kind of behavior.<br /><br />People like Stallman actually make me feel less marginalized. I hope there will be more outspoken atheists to balance the overwhelming and oppressive Christian presence in professional contexts.<br /><br />(As for the technical substance of Stallman's remarks, I'm no Stallman fan and I think he's wrong and mis-informed.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-46387236426453567862009-10-12T12:29:28.768-07:002009-10-12T12:29:28.768-07:00This isn't that complex, Guy.
I didn't in...This isn't that complex, Guy.<br /><br />I didn't invite him. I had no particular expectations regarding the sort of speech he might give.<br /><br />However, I was responsible for getting my organization to sponsor the event. Effectively, I paid for the guy to come and offend me and many others. I've absolutely got not only a right, but a <i>responsibility</i>—not least, since that kind of talk, were it in a presentation given by an employee of any company I've worked for in the past two decades, would be cause for a strong warning, if not outright dismissal—to do so.<br /><br />I'm not going to be conducting a debate with you around the 300th comment on a months-old posting any further.Leftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-62942395230141591772009-10-12T12:02:22.787-07:002009-10-12T12:02:22.787-07:00re the organizers - Then ask the local organizers...re the organizers - Then ask the local organizers to issue an apology. And if you think it is that serious, the general group (KDE, GNOME, whatever) should apologize as well. You share the fame, you share the blame.<br /><br />as for the second point, I still fail to see your logic. Say you were to ask Stallman to give a talk, and expected this exact speech. By what logic did you not wave your right to ask him to apologize for doing what you specifically knew you were asking him to do? <br /><br />Plenary speakers are entertainers and they all have their pros and cons. You can't invite someone, let him loose and then attack him for his most famous vice. It wasn't a one time slip that he made just in this event.<br />Next time maybe invite Howard Stern and ask him to apologize ? <br /><br />Bottom line (and I am using winXP to write this) IMHO, get off the guyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17642046038110863624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-33228246755826879952009-10-12T11:46:45.954-07:002009-10-12T11:46:45.954-07:00Neither the GNOME Foundation Board, nor the Adviso...Neither the GNOME Foundation Board, nor the Advisory Board (nor the KDE Foundation Board, I'm told) had any part in inviting Mr. Stallman to speak. That was a decision made by the local organizers, as far as I know.<br /><br /><i><b>He has been giving the same routine for years.</b></i><br /><br />What a shame that no one asked him to stop years ago!<br /><br /><b><i>You can't ask someone to repeat a speech that has already been given 100 times and then ask him to apologize for giving this speech</i></b><br /><br />Of course I can. It's the first time <i>I'd </i>ever seen his idea of a "comedy routine", and I was offended, as were many members of the audience, as has been excruciatingly detailed. This is just a variation on "That's just the way he is", which is a pretty shoddy excuse for bad behavior.<br /><br />But again, the really interesting question, to me, anyway, is "Why didn't anyone complain about this before?"Leftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-35593805062478237862009-10-12T11:29:34.971-07:002009-10-12T11:29:34.971-07:00I know its a bit late, but as you are in the Advis...I know its a bit late, but as you are in the Advisory Board, I think you are missing an important point. Stallman's potentially offensive remarks should have been completely expected to those who organize the convention and so ambushing him makes no sense. <br />He has been giving the same routine for years.<br />If anyone exhibited bad judgment it is the organizers. They (you) could have asked him to skip this part as a condition. They didn't and he did the exact thing you invited him to do. Asking him to apologize for it is, well, hypocritical. <br />You can't ask someone to repeat a speech that has already been given 100 times and then ask him to apologize for giving this speech.<br />Sure, requiring him not to do the virgin bit in your events is up to you, and if you feel it offends your crowd, go ahead. <br />I am not getting into the debate on whether he should or should not say what he says (although I'd stop if I were him, as a gesture if nothing else).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17642046038110863624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-85996326109599985862009-08-10T17:20:23.329-07:002009-08-10T17:20:23.329-07:00"Grow up and learn to take a joke."
It&..."Grow up and learn to take a joke."<br /><br />It's not funny to denigrate women at a public conference. I don't mind if co-workers who obviously respect my technical abilities sometimes tease me and make sexist jokes. But jokes that generically make fun of women's technical abilities aren't funny.<br /><br />Stop it.<br /><br />If you don't understand, it may because you haven't experienced discrimination. I have. It was not funny. It harmed my soul, my pocketbook, my family, our customers, and our co-workers. (It wasn't just jokes; it was illegal hiring practices.) After experiencing that, hmm, my sense of humor may be a bit buggy. Sorry.<br /><br />Try some empathy. If that doesn't work for you, try thinking about your daughter or wife or mother trying to work in this male-dominated industry. <br /><br />Being made fun of isn't funny.<br /><br />Stop it.<br /><br />Thank-you, Lefty.Priscilla Oppenheimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16200272691941910102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-82657813181959613202009-07-28T14:14:53.654-07:002009-07-28T14:14:53.654-07:00I'd sue you.
You'd lose. Decisively, defi...<b><i>I'd sue you.</i></b><br /><br />You'd lose. Decisively, definitively, and disastrously, since such a suit would be clearly frivolous.<br /><br />(And when you talk about "breaking the law", you <i>prove</i> you have no idea what you're talking about, by the way.)<br /><br />Buzz off, Beez. Save your Godwin's Law-breaking for your own blog in the future.Leftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-49747604631720857322009-07-28T14:03:16.483-07:002009-07-28T14:03:16.483-07:00How does the Gnome Advisory Board feel about havin...How does the Gnome Advisory Board feel about having a member, that <a href="http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/07/emailing-richard-stallman.html?showComment=1247103190305#c5286387400171432705" rel="nofollow">admits to breaking the law in public</a>. And oes not repent in any way, yes, is even proud of his act!<br /><br />And for having read all the pleas your father made hasn't really improved your legal skills. If RMS is ok with breaking copyright (promoting a crime) that doesn't give you the right to commit that crime. That the monetary value of what you published is minor importance here, it is about how much damage has been done to RMS by publishing that emails.<br /><br />Did RMS commit a crime? No, he might even throw it on the first. If the KKK can get away with it, so can he. So there was no need to publish these emails in the public interest. You damaged his reputation though and invaded his privacy.<br /><br />I'd sue you.The Beez'https://www.blogger.com/profile/14718864828133872589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-44870914932157031962009-07-21T13:38:59.976-07:002009-07-21T13:38:59.976-07:00> Does RMS think all source code should
> be...> Does RMS think all source code should<br />> be free, or his private e-mails as<br />> well??<br /><br />Dr. Stallman has told me in the past that he considers all email exchanges to be public record.C.J. Adams-Collierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13555716613127948038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-32643186181256038202009-07-19T15:16:50.433-07:002009-07-19T15:16:50.433-07:00I've lived in Cambridge MA, I've known a b...I've lived in Cambridge MA, I've known a bunch of MIT folk, and... well, RMS is somewhat infamous amongst female MIT computer scientists. Doesn't surprise me at all.mathewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934631957033086256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-25151482008693570562009-07-19T06:09:16.344-07:002009-07-19T06:09:16.344-07:00OOof...
What happened? Someone hit you in the gut...<b><i>OOof...</i></b><br /><br />What happened? Someone hit you in the gut or something?<br /><br />All you've got there is a "convenience name", tied to a blog account with no content. It's no different, as far as I'm concerned, than an anonymouns posting, so you're <i>still </i> a Nameless Coward in <i>my </i>book.<br /><br />Ordinarily, I'd just blow off your inane comment, but the concentrated <i>dumb </i>there is a little too appealing, sorry.<br /><br /><b><i>Anyways, yeah, Okay, I can have a tendency to be a little over dramatic, but this one seems to have flown straight over your head. ...</i></b><br /><br />Anyways, yeah, okay, what are you <i>talking </i>about, <i>dude?</i><br /><br /><b><i>The problem is lefty, that we only really have your side of the argument. Stallman replied to YOU, thinking it was a private email. If he knew his comments would be published publically, he might have had the opportunity to provide the background information he was assuming you already knew.</i></b><br /><br />The problem is, "Breton", that you're making senseless assertions. If Stallman would reply to an individual in the audience in one way, and then reply "to the public" in a completely <i>different </i>way, then I guess he'd be a hypocrite.<br /><br />And there is <i>no possible</i> "background information" that will make his stupid little, sexually-loaded joke, aimed directly at the women in the audience, anything other than a stupid little, sexually-loaded joke, aimed directly at the women in the audience.<br /><br />It's a little offensive that you suggest there is. You're saying that the <i>entire audience </i>was somehow too dopey to understand what Stallman <i>really </i>meant with that joke, that there's some "secret decoder ring".<br /><br />That's stupid, Breton, but then, <i>you're </i>stupid, so it's probably par for the course.<br /><br /><b><i>HOWEVER, being american, I have this funny affection for the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty".</i></b><br /><br />This isn't a criminal trial. I'm not the government. So <i>that's </i>got nothing to do with anything.<br /><br /><b><i>You're quoting him out of context,</i></b><br /><br />Are you insane? How can I "quote him out of context" when I've provided the full text of both emails, verbatim. Do you know what "context" <i>means, </i>"Breton"? It seems not.<br /><br /><i><b>and there appears to be some evidence that in fact he was making fun of sexists.</b></i><br /><br />No there isn't, and no one in the audience took it that way. You're making excuses for him, and I'm tired of them.<br /><br /><i><b>But because of this little storm in a teacup, most people will probably never find out the other side of the story and simply write Richard Stallman off once again as a "Kook", a "Loony" and as one blogpost had it "I ALWAYS KNEW HE WAS MESSED UP! Now I finally have something on him!"</b></i><br /><br />I provided "the other side of the story", "Breton". It seems like you're not capable of grasping that.<br /><br />One last time, for the room-temperature IQ crowd: <i>Telling a "joke", aimed only at women, suggesting that <i>guys </i>had a <i>holy duty </i>to <i>relieve</i> them of their virginity</i> is Not A "Harmless Little Joke".<br /><br />It is Not "Gentle Fun".<br /><br />Its happening to be told in a context of "religious parody" Does Not Somehow Magically Make A Sexually Loaded And Offensive Joke Aimed At The Women In The Audience Turn Into A Positive Blow For Feminism.<br /><br />There Is Not "Another Other Side To The Story" Other Than The Other Side That I've Already Provided.<br /><br />Well, yeah, anyways, I'd give the bong a rest if I were you, <i>dude.</i> You're failing to make sense.<br /><br />Buzz off. Save the stupid for your <i>own </i>blog, if you can figure out how to get one going.<br /><br />Now, don't you feel like a <i>dope </i>for writing, Breton?Leftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-24508902980002317232009-07-19T04:17:55.221-07:002009-07-19T04:17:55.221-07:00OOof, you're right, I probably should have us...OOof, you're right, I probably should have used an assumed name. Now this will show up on google, along with all the other embarassing things I post on the internet. Oy. It's hilarious that you think my name is made up though. I'd be offended by the suggestion if I was a bit more precious.<br /><br />Anyways, yeah, Okay, I can have a tendency to be a little over dramatic, but this one seems to have flown straight over your head. I was making fun of you, dude. Sorry, but that was meant to be satire of your behavior, I know it might not have been obvious, but, oh well, now I just have to go and deflate the joke by explaining it.<br /><br />The problem is lefty, that we only really have your side of the argument. Stallman replied to YOU, thinking it was a private email. If he knew his comments would be published publically, he might have had the opportunity to provide the background information he was assuming you already knew. <br /><br />HOWEVER, being american, I have this funny affection for the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty". You're quoting him out of context, and there appears to be some evidence that in fact he was making fun of sexists. But because of this little storm in a teacup, most people will probably never find out the other side of the story and simply write Richard Stallman off once again as a "Kook", a "Loony" and as one blogpost had it "I ALWAYS KNEW HE WAS MESSED UP! Now I finally have something on him!"<br /><br /><br />In any case, what I was trying to point out was, just because people were offended doesn't mean they're owed an apology. People get offended all the time for the stupidest things. This is all just witch hunting with very flimsy evidence and heresay. I wish I had not foolishy attached my name to any of it, but whatever, here it is.7https://www.blogger.com/profile/04353968727885821898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-40531002718675977512009-07-18T06:46:46.328-07:002009-07-18T06:46:46.328-07:00the real religion here is the mindless and redirec...the real religion here is the mindless and redirecting defense and following of RMS.<br /><br />i posted OSnew's coverage and a link to your page here at NowPublic. it immediately was flagged as "fishy" despite providing links to the appropriate info.<br /><br />the people who are telling you about publishing private emails are exactly what they've been described as: embarrassed themselves. i've found RMS to be offensive, rude and outright obsessive for ages. as a person with autism (AS), i identify him as possibly having it himself and being the reason for his behavior and his inability to know when a "joke" isn't funny and in which crowd it is especially wrong to make that joke. BUT it's no excuse. i've learned quite a lot about appropriateness. i've learned about emails and privacy. THERE IS NO PRIVACY and RMS IS a public figure. if anything, he wouldn't stop you publishing these emails because it's all the more attention he can get for himself.<br /><br />ignore the people telling you to get over it because they're insensitive and anti-social themselves. this is about humane treatment of other people and you're in the right (as far as i'm concerned).<br /><br />-jace cavacini (not afraid to use his real name either)dysamoriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10297987530825303618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-72717589728070469292009-07-16T13:50:47.425-07:002009-07-16T13:50:47.425-07:00There's nothing wrong with quoting the bible. ...There's nothing wrong with quoting the bible. There is however something wrong with using parts of it that marginalize groups of people, whether it be women, or as in the case quoted "madmen". For far to long those with mental difficulties are used as examples of evil, and your quote shows just how far back it goes. The term "madman" has been used for centuries as an insulting term to marginalize those with mental illness. Just because it is in the bible does not mean we should continue the practice.<br /><br />There are good things in the bible, and there are not so good things in the bible. Occasionally the writers of the bible promoted various kinds of racism, classism, sexism, ableism and religiousisms. Other times they resisted all of these. We should admire the good and resist the promotion of isms.<br /><br />Look, I just don't get how on a post showing how bad sexism is, which is just one kind of ism, that people feel free to flagrantly and horrifically use ableism, and other isms to reject it. Isms are ALL WRONG. STOP using them to defend against one form, because when you do, you're not actually defending sexism, you are PROMOTING IT. <br /><br />When you use one ism to defend against another, you are saying "It is wrong to practice the isms that *I* think are wrong, but good to practice the isms that *I* think are right!" This is deceitful, abominable, and just as wrong as the ism you are rejecting in the first place.<br /><br />Lefty is right about the demand for him to apologize. Apologize for what? You are offended about what?<br /><br />Lefty I don't demand any apology from you for ableist language. I realize you might not even know you or others are making ableist comments. It would be kind though, for you to make a definitive statement that you reject all isms, and find the ablest language of some commenting here as abhorrent as you find any other ism. But barring that, if you simply come to an awareness of ableist language and resist using it, that would be sufficient to make yourself a good example. Yes, it will take time since most are simply unaware of how much ableist language permeats our cultures worldwide. But doing so now, we can look forward to a time when no one is marginalized for their race, gender, differently abled conditions, religion, culture, appearance, or any other situation in their life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-13675373668410468442009-07-16T11:56:43.710-07:002009-07-16T11:56:43.710-07:00It's funny how folks will comment, "Dude,...It's funny how folks will comment, "Dude, just chill out! It was just a joke!" <br /><br />Something about trying to make me think a certain way comes to mind. Kind of hypocritical. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I don't agree with everything Lefty does but by no means do I raise RMS on a pedestal although I do use his 4 freedoms as a standard when making my mind up about various software. In this case, RMS is waaaay wrong. <br /><br />So, if I were to use "it was just a joke, dude!" as a standard, then why would the Kramer actor be lambasted for making racist jokes? Eh? <b>Because sometimes a "joke" isn't called for, especially in a public setting, you dolt!</b><br /><br />Like a madman shooting<br />firebrands or deadly arrows<br />is a man who deceives his neighbor<br />and says, “I was only joking!” <br /><br />(Yep, quoting the Bible...get over it!)FelixTheCathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05365833098913665635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-68232362138570854512009-07-16T07:11:17.682-07:002009-07-16T07:11:17.682-07:00I am offended by lefty, and I demand a full apolog...<b><i>I am offended by lefty, and I demand a full apology. I don't care whether you intended to offend me or not. the fact is *I* was offended, and I deserve an apology!</i></b><br /><br />Several issues, "Breton".<br /><br />First, I told people to have a name. I didn't mean an empty ID set up solely to provide comments. I'll be treating "convenience names", i.e. identities with no content behind them, like"Breton" here, as Anonymous Cowards, at my discretion).<br /><br />Second, you haven't give us any idea what you're offended <i>about. </i>If you're offended becuase I'm tall or have seen more horror movies than you have (I <i>have, </i>you know), tough, no dice, no apology, learn to deal with your anguish.<br /><br />Third, the way to <i>get </i>as apology is to do what I did with Stallman: write a reasoned email and lay out your issues. Don't whine in a blog entry using a non-name.<br /><br />Anyone want to lay odds that I ever actually hear from "Breton" here?Leftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-79859108647434470042009-07-16T06:57:17.530-07:002009-07-16T06:57:17.530-07:00I am offended by lefty, and I demand a full apolog...I am offended by lefty, and I demand a full apology. I don't care whether you intended to offend me or not. the fact is *I* was offended, and I deserve an apology!7https://www.blogger.com/profile/04353968727885821898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-60297596244917803432009-07-15T23:05:15.460-07:002009-07-15T23:05:15.460-07:00Folks, you know even if there is a dispute about m...Folks, you know even if there is a dispute about mono between Lefty and anyone else, the question to ask is, are his claims valid. Very often we call into question the person, as an attempt to ignore the claims of the person. The only point to questioning the person at all would be, if their claims were entirely false. <br /><br />The facts are that all of us have our privileges. Men are privileged and often it is difficult to notice this. When a person that is privileged says something that hurts the feelings of another, they don't get to say that the person's feelings should not have been hurt. They are certainly allowed to explain themselves, what they meant and clarify any facts in question. <br /><br />So Lefty's disputes about mono, whether real or not, are not particularly relevant. The only question to ask is, "is this a real accusation? Was Stallman making sexist claims? Or, as some have stated, was he in fact mocking sexism and not women?" Or other questions like these. Rather than "does Lefty like Mono?"<br /><br />Lefty, I realize accusations against you can be exasperating. I implore you though to stop using ableist language. Referring to persons who may be in the wrong by the ableist term "half-witted" does nothing to promote your rejection of sexism. Rather it tells people who are mentally challenged, that you're fine using terms traditionally used to marginalize them, in an effort to shut down someone else. While the person may deserve to be shut down, the mentally challenged do not deserve to be continually dismissed, marginalized and used as fodder.<br /><br />Again I am sure you do not intend to do these things. I'm convinced you are not even aware of your use of ablest terms. It's for that reason I bring them to your attention as a thoughtful person who desires to be inclusive, and not "other" any person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-26815758302536180682009-07-15T15:50:41.447-07:002009-07-15T15:50:41.447-07:00There simply are no words to describe how bad this...<b><i>There simply are no words to describe how bad this really is.</i></b><br /><br />Given that, it's too bad you felt impelled to try anyway, hm?<br /><br />The inclusion of the ITWire link is a complete mystery to me, unless this is your oblique way of saying that I'm <i>really </i>complaining about Stallman's clearly sexist remarks as a sort of an indirect way of taking issue with his views on Mono.<br /><br />This is most certainly not the case; if I felt that strongly about his position on Mono, I'd simply post about <i>that. </i>As I've said, in fact, if Stallman had <i>limited </i>himself to comments on Mono, I wouldn't have posted at all. I really don't care that much about it (although I do use F-Spot and Tomboy, as I've said).<br /><br />Now, if you <i>are </i>making such a claim, that this is <i>really </i>a duplicitous way for me to complain about Mono without actually complaining about Mono, then that's an offensive implication in itself.<br /><br />You're saying that sexism which has the effect of limiting participation by women in FLOSS--something which <i>clearly </i>happens, consider the recent incidents at GoGaRuCo and FlashBelt--isn't even worth talking about, that if someone <i>does </i>talk about it, they must <i>really </i>be talking about something else.<br /><br />And while I may have occasionally spat a little venom at some of the anonymous commentators--who've been much more venomous themselves, as mdz has pointed out on <a href="http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/13/backlash-feminism-considered-harmful/" rel="nofollow">his blog</a>--I dispute that I've "spat venom" at Stallman. I've taken an exceptionally dim view of his "comedy routine", since it was unfunny, out of place, and offensive.<br /><br />You talk about "harmless virgin jokes" and that where I take exception: when someone who is a supposed "leader of the Free Software movement" uses that position of leadership to single out women in particular as needing assistance to be "relieved" from their technical (or other) "virginity", that's problematical. When it's in a situation where the very few women in the audience are outnumbered at a rate of 40-to-1, it's a situation which is <i>very </i>uncomfortable. It was offensive to me, and mdz and Matt Garrett and Paul Cutler and André Klapper and many, many others who didn't happen to blog about it. It was <i>very </i>offensive to every women in attendance to whom I spoke, and I think I spoke to most of them. The most positive comment I heard from a woman was that it made her "very uncomfortable".<br /><br />So, I think you're completely out of line. This is my own blog, not a corporate blog, not a Foundation blog. Perhaps you're trying to <i>stifle my freedom of speech </i>here, since you apparently find it inconvenient.<br /><br />Finally:<br /><br /><b><i>...censoring his own blog comments when commenters rightfully criticise him for it.</i></b><br /><br />As I said, it's my blog and I was quite clear why I turned off anonymous commentary (read mdz's blog entry if you're still confused, somehow) and turned on moderation. As I enjoy pointing out, "freedom of the press" does not imply that <i>you're </i>free to use <i>my </i>press.<br /><br />You've got a completely empty, brand-spankin'-new Wordpress blog, undoubtedly set up specifically so you could share your thoughtless little screed with us.<br /><br />Maybe you should go use <i>that </i>instead of venting your bogus conspiracy theories and minimization of what's widely recognized as a real <i>problem </i>in the FLOSS community--a problem which those "harmless virgin jokes" only exacerbate--over there instead of wasting my time over here.<br /><br />And, by the way, I reserve the right to treat "convenience names"--i.e. identities set up yesterday or this morning just to circumvent my ban on the Nameless--just the same as though they were anonymous. So be grateful I published your comment at all; the only reason I did so is that it was so halfwitted that it really needed a direct response.<br /><br />Don't like that? Write the President of the Internet, by all means.<br /><br />Thanks for your ill-considered comment. Now go away.Leftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7127741847312258461.post-6310054389435748202009-07-15T15:05:20.593-07:002009-07-15T15:05:20.593-07:00I'm less concerned with RMS making harmless &q...I'm less concerned with RMS making harmless "virgin" jokes, than I am with the fact that David Schlesinger, a "member of the LiMo Foundation's Architectural Steering Committee and chair of the Open Source Committee, as well as a member of the GNOME Foundation Advisory Board", has taken to harassing RMS, publishing his private correspondence without permission, and even censoring his own blog comments when commenters rightfully criticise him for it.<br /><br />Of course, I think it's pretty obvious exactly what's got Mr. Schlesinger spitting venom at the father of Free Software, and it has absolutely nothing to do with virgins.<br /><br />http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26166/1090/<br /><br />Schlesinger's attack on RMS is pitiful, juvenile, and simply embarrassing. It also brings into disrepute the other organisations that he's supposed to represent as a mature, level-headed professional, instead of like some teenage thug on a bullying rampage.<br /><br />There simply are no words to describe how bad this really is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com