🚀 go-pugleaf

jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>=o= My hypothesis is pretty simple:  There is a definition of
>"free" based on conservative/libertarian ideology, and which
>netfolk tend to use more than the population at large.

That is a weaker argument than the one you started with.

In particular, you have omitted the parts about netfolk
supposedly taking this position because of their hypothetical
privileged-class status, along with the implication that these
people would use some other definition of "free" if they were
not so privileged.

Incidentally, if you want to continue to push this (not so)
simple hypothesis, you might try stating explicitly what
you think this conservative/libertarian definition is.
That should at least make clear what relevance, if any,
it has to FSF's use of "free," or arguments against same.

>All this stuff you label _ad_hominem_ (yes, I know what it
>means) derives itself from what *you* introduced, not what
>I actually wrote.

You criticized arguments against FSF's use of "free" with
comments about the personal beliefs of people making the
arguments.  That's an ad hominem attack in my book, and
I certainly did *not* introduce it.


Jesse Perry   jesse@franklin.com   uunet!frnkmth!jesse