On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 12:32 +0200, Jan wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:19:28 +0200 > "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:59:41PM -0300, Wilson Bustos wrote: > > > Which 'behavior' are you exactly talking about? > > > > Perhaps > > https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e78 > > 4f88 > > > > Thank you, GNU maintainers, for your statement. > > > > Regards, > > Florian > > > > I would like to note a lot of articles on the Internet purposely > misquote Stallman. For example this header from your link: > "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ‘Entirely > Willing’". > He didn't defend Epstein, he had actually called him a "serial rapist" > earlier, also in the mail he didn't say "victims", note the plural. He > also said the victim could be *presented* to Minsky as entirely willing, > he didn't say she actually was. Language is a really subtle tool and > small things like this can make a big change. > > So please, be careful, when reading those articles and judge wisely, > especially because the situation is a really delicate matter. > > I also found the link to arguments defending Stallman: > https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ > > I don't really know what should I think about all of this, but it > would be a bit unjust if Stallman didn't have any defense, even if he > made a mistake. > > > Hope I won't get excluded from the project, because of my opinion, > Jan Well, after reading both articles I learned some things about RMS I didn't want or need to know. My concerns are resolved.
==Please leave me out of further replies.==
