Branden Robinson wonders why I do not address him in my messages. I will not answer him, because I am not on speaking terms with him. However, I will explain this for the sake of others. I am not on speaking terms with him, and I don't think questions like his deserve a response.
Typically they take a belligerent tone. Often they start with fabrications, and speculate at length about what it would mean if those fabrications were true. (This is classic smear campaign tactics.) Often they assert that unless I disprove the fabrications to his satisfaction, he is entitled to presume them valid. To answer the questions would be to accept the ground rules they presuppose, so I do not answer. When it seems useful, I criticize the questions themselves. For instance, his latest message speculates at length about the meaning of a supposed conflict between my personal statements (about Debian, one must presume) and the FSF's position. It implies that I made personal statements endorsing Debian, and that I was at fault for not distinguishing them from the FSF's position. Nothing like that occurred. What I personally say about Debian is that it pays more respect to the user's freedom than other distributions, but that I cannot endorse it because of the distribution of non-free packages. Robinson actually cited this in his message, but that didn't stop him from fabricating something contrary. If Debian is seriously interested in discussing how to produce a distribution that the FSF could recommend, or at least consider ethically acceptable, I would very much like to discuss that with Debian developers that approach the discussion in a spirit of good will. I won't discuss the issue with Branden Robinson, though.
