🚀 go-pugleaf

--- This is a response to my original posting to emacs.gnu.help (which is an
    inappropriate forum for this discussion; my apologies). I felt that I wanted
    to clarify my strong ideas on the subject, which I hope I do here. Please
    note that this is not a defamation of Richard Stallman, but a criticism of
    what I believe to be his responsibility to the FSF/GNU community. Thanks. 

On Dec 30, 10:29pm, Gray Watson wrote:
> Subject: sigh...
> 
> >I am rather dismayed that you would lower yourself to respond to "the crank" 
> >(who, by the way, I happen to work with).
> 
> rms did not respond to Ross (address unknown lucky for him) but to the list in
> an attempt to stem the deluge of mail that would be a almost proper response to
> Ross' letter.
>

I find your logic here incomprehensible. Stallman's response was a self-serving
gesture rather than an attempt to stem any deluge of mail. Why? Because most
emacs/vi users realize that the choice of their environment is not a definition
of their humanity. This apparently does not apply to Stallman, who seems to 
associate his self-image with FSF/GNU rather than with Richard Stallman....
 
"address unknown lucky for him"? Does he deserve a paddling because he expresses
his opinion (whether we agree with it or not)? Why does it deserve a response
in the first place? My issue is with Stallman (see further down)...

> You and your buddy Ross are wasting bandwidth.  Please review the letter that
> you sent in the context of help-gnu-emacs.  If you have a gripe, send it to
> gnu-misc-discuss.  Hell, stallman has a reply address in all of his messages
> (unlike Ross).  He answers a lot more mail then he should have time to.
>

I certainly agree with you that the context of this discussion is NOT
appropriate for this newsgroup. Unfortunately, this discussion actually
started when a user attempted to determine whether emacs was supported under
A/UX. Stallman ignited an argument by addressing his answer not to the user,
but to this group. Why didn't he respond directly to the user, who provided
his own reply address? Why didn't he direct the response to the discuss 
newsgroup, if he wanted to provide a manifesto? Furthermore, his self-serving
replies to those who argued with him only continued to "waste bandwith" (though
at one point he did address the discussion to the discuss newsgroup). I read 
this with some amusement until Ross's posting and yet another self-serving 
reply from Stallman. I was totally amazed that Stallman ACTUALLY responded to
a flame! If "He answers a lot more mail than he should have time to", then why
is he spending so much of his time jacking-around with this newsgroup?  I wish
he would spend more time enhancing emacs (version 19) than enhancing Richard
Stallman. 
 
> One more thing.  Ross' letter was ignorant and hypocritical as well as
> insulting.  I thought stallman's on the other was very civil (even with the
> crank reference).
> 

Ignorant, I agree with. But where do you get hypocritical and insulting? 
Hypocritical to what? Insulting to who? Are you Gray or are you your editor?

Stallman's response was not even necessary. Who is he trying to convince? Why
do they need convincing? He's trying to convince Richard Stallman!

And, by the way, Richard Stallman's response was hypocritical and insulting.
The word crank indicates (in a derogatory manner) someone who doesn't go with
the flow. Stallman doesn't go with the flow. How can he criticize someone else
who doesn't in a derogatory manner? 

Ya know, it always seems that those with the strongest ideas on subjects defeat
their own purposes by closing themselves off to other ideas which might enhance
their own knowledge... Richard Stallman is an extremely bright guy who has
indirectly helped me a lot by providing creative environment tools. I believe
that his creativity and brilliance does not yet extend beyond the computing
environment, however...

> gray
> 
> p.s. What is Ross' email address?

He's read your letter and if he chooses to give you his email address, that is
his perogative. I think that it is unfair for you to expect me to provide you
with that information.

Thanks for your letter. But if you feel so indignant about this, why didn't 
you post it to the net, in the discuss group?  Maybe others who share your
opinions might like to see this...

As for me, however, I shall retire to my computer until I encounter another
emacs problem...See you in the help and sources newsgroups...

But first, I will post this to the discuss group...

--- End of excerpt

-- 
William J. (Joshua) Abrams            Internet: wabrams@bcm.tmc.edu
Baylor College of Medicine            Phone:    (713) 798-3776
Houston, Texas                        My opinions reflect only my own desires.
"I'm not your only friend, but I'm a little glowing friend..." - John/John