Matthew Garrett <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 05:47:14PM -0500, quiliro wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:36:03AM -0500, quiliro wrote: >> > >> >> There is no evidence of any rape. There are anonymous texts only that >> >> accuse him of it. Why asume Jake is lying, when he is the only one that >> >> is putting his name on it? >> > >> > Written descriptions of events are literally evidence. >> >> They are evidence that someone knows how to write, not that someone did >> something depicted in that text. > > It might not be sufficient evidence to convince you, but that doesn't > mean it's not evidence. > >> >> The person should not prove per is innocent. The accuser does not need >> >> to be open. But must show evidence beyond doubt of guilt. >> > >> > That's the standard held in a court of law. But falsely accusing someone >> > of rape is also a crime, and you seem willing to assert that Jake's >> > victims are guilty of that. >> >> I cannot accuse anyone because all of them are aliases. The only one >> that has done that openly is you. I am not interested in accusing you. I >> am just interested in rescueing the name of a person that has done >> good...at least from what I have seen personally. RMS, Assange, >> Appelbaum look like victims. I cannot prove it. But they deserve to be >> held innocent until proved guilty...in my book. > > You said that you would treat them as false accusations. That's not > merely deciding that Jake is innocent until proven guilty, that's saying > that you believe a set of people are guilty of breaking the law. To be > clear, it is absolutely your right to believe that Jake's accusers are > breaking the law! But you can't simultaneously say that you believe Jake > is innocent until proven guilty while also saying that those who accuse > him are guilty despite not having been proven so. > >> >> If you do not want to hang around him because you think it is probable >> >> he is guilty, that is understandable. Another thing is dragging others >> >> to take suspicions as irrefutable truth. If that was somone's attitude >> >> against you, they would think you have a hidden agenda in favour of >> >> someone who has interests against Jake. But even if there are thinks >> >> that look spooky in your acts, no one has not made that accusation >> >> against you because the evidence is not enough. >> > >> > Daniel has repeatedly suggested that organisations that chose to cut >> > ties with Jake acted inappropriately. Is it reasonable to question >> > Daniel's motivations? >> >> It is reasonable to have an opinion about it. His motivations are >> clear. He felt that FSFE was under bad leadership. He shows it. > > What does that have to do with his repeated suggestions that it was > inappropriate for Debian to cut ties with Jake? > >> This thread has reached a point there is no more you have contributed to >> this discussion in the last few emails. There is enough evidence to >> conclude that you have no proof that a the crime was commited. I will >> not discuss any other thing about the topic unless there is credible >> evidence. I do not trust the direction you are taking this "yes it is / >> no it isn't" conversation. I feel your intentions are not clean and that >> you try to act against me. It looks as if you are trying trick me in >> several ways. I will not answer any more of your questions. > > Despite asking you several times, you have failed to say what you would > actually need to see in order to conclude that Jake is a rapist. What do > you mean by "credible evidence"?
I have responded your questions several times. Please stop harrassing me. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
