🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3216@ylum.Morgan.COM> sethb@Morgan.COM (Seth Breidbart) writes:

   Speaking from personal experience, it is quite possible to argue with
   RMS.  It is even possible to win an argument with him.  It just isn't
   easy.  It helps to have logic on your side, and you must remember that
   there are certain beliefs he holds that he won't accept contradictions
   to.

   In the 23 years I've known him, I think I've won two arguments.

Perhaps you've won more and haven't realized it.  The moment when one
realizes one has "won" an argument with rms is vanishingly small because,
as far as I can tell, there is no ego to wound or keep propping up a failed
argument of logic or fact.  With many people who frequent newsgroups like
this (and who thus tend to be individualistic and very bright, and know it),
most "arguments" wrap up by a final exchange or to after the point has been
objectively won because the "loser" isn't yet willing to admit/see it, until
the winning point has been driven home two or three times.  I've never
seen this happen with rms.  Usually once you convince him of your position
at the expense of a position he previously held, there is immediately too
much work to do to bother with mourning the lost position.  I have very
little experience to go on, however; and perhaps my experience is colored by
the fact that I am pretty good at avoiding getting into raised-voice
discussions (which are easy to get into with FSF people, and probably many
others as well -- but the FSF, without classic management "structure", i.e.
a boss who can rag on you for not "interfacing" properly, seems to be a
breeding ground for people who carry on discussions this way, friendly and
otherwise).

Most of us like to think we back up our positions with infallible logic,
but in practice there are often large components of feear/concerns/
expectations and other alogical stuff.  Someone with as much experience
in a particular field as rms, and with as little "other" experience as
he has (as is true for many "hackers"), has been able to move more decisions
into the realm of logic supported by tangible experience than most of the rest
of us.  It is also the case that rms is reasonably good at stating the
less-grounded aspects of his supporting arguments, something I've been
learning to do only recently as well (as in, "I also want to do it this
way because I just have this funny feeling that I've been burnt before
when I've done it the other way" rather than just "WRONG, do it my way,
it's obviously the only right way").  He won't win any awards for
interpersonal communication, but I always find it easier to discuss issues
with someone who ultimately respects logic and experience as much as he does,
so it's worth it.  And, of course, it is always useful to talk with someone
more experienced and focused in a field so as to learn from him or her.
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu