TomB and his accusations
Snit
doing more than defending Stallman but actually *agreeing* with Stallman's
repulsive views.
I want to clarify - even though others have noted it was already clear. I
am *not* saying TomB or others agree that possession of child pornography
and engaging in pedophilia are acceptable, nor that they agree with Stallman
that the only reason these things are illegal is "because of prejudice and
narrowmindedness."
But it is interesting that TomB finds it amazingly offensive that anyone
would say he agrees with this. He *knows* it is wrong. He knows Stallman
is wrong. He is very offended that anyone would lump him with Stallman and
say he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
But then TomB and others *defend* Stallman and say that maybe his ideas are
no so bad... maybe there is some twist that can be applied that would make
his ideas be less repulsive. There is not. But TomB and others defend
Stallman because he is a leader in the desktop/Linux world... and because to
speak poorly of Stallman would be to risk standing in the COLA "herd".
It is reprehensible to defend Stallman - but that does not mean one agrees
with Stallman's perverted views. I can see, however, why TomB would feel
guilty enough about his stance to lash out so emotionally... TomB knows his
defense of Stallman is wrong.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris
> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with
> Stallman and say he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new thread
for that and why you don't provide a full quote with context?
> But then TomB and others *defend* Stallman and say that maybe his ideas
> are no so bad... maybe there is some twist that can be applied that
> would make his ideas be less repulsive. There is not.
From your latest response I assume I am part of "others". If you suggest
something like this, please provide a list with people who do what you
say they did and provide some quotes with some context.
The "twist that can be applied" is the direct words of Richard Stallman:
"as long as no one is coerced"
In this... thing... http://ompldr.org/vOXF4ZA you have not once even
attempted to guess what he may have meant with that phrase. The most that
you produced in that regard was "Coercion is irrelevant".
From Stallmans other comments you quoted I guess he was only speaking of
youths mature enaugh to make a decision for themselves but I am not tired
of saying this again: I don't know what he meant. And neither does you
until you ask him.
> But TomB and
> others defend Stallman because he is a leader in the desktop/Linux
> world...
Not really. I have said that I barely know anything about him and
therefore I could easily be wrong. This is still the case.
> and because to speak poorly of Stallman would be to risk
> standing in the COLA "herd".
I have yet to see evidence of this so called "herd".
TomB
> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:15 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
>> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with Stallman and
>> say he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
>
> Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new
> thread for that and why you don't provide a full quote with context?
One reason: because he's a troll. And an extremely nasty one at that.
>> But then TomB and others *defend* Stallman and say that maybe his
>> ideas are no so bad... maybe there is some twist that can be
>> applied that would make his ideas be less repulsive. There is not.
>
> From your latest response I assume I am part of "others". If you
> suggest something like this, please provide a list with people who
> do what you say they did and provide some quotes with some context.
>
> The "twist that can be applied" is the direct words of Richard
> Stallman: "as long as no one is coerced"
>
> In this... thing... http://ompldr.org/vOXF4ZA you have not once even
> attempted to guess what he may have meant with that phrase. The most
> that you produced in that regard was "Coercion is irrelevant".
Of course. When something doesn't fit in the troll's agenda, it's
'irrelevant'.
> From Stallmans other comments you quoted I guess he was only
> speaking of youths mature enaugh to make a decision for themselves
> but I am not tired of saying this again: I don't know what he meant.
> And neither does you until you ask him.
Exactly. And at least you and I are intelligent enough to not jump to
wild conclusions, and morally stable enough not to spew outrageous
accusations.
>> But TomB and others defend Stallman because he is a leader in the
>> desktop/Linux world...
>
> Not really. I have said that I barely know anything about him and
> therefore I could easily be wrong. This is still the case.
>
>> and because to speak poorly of Stallman would be to risk standing
>> in the COLA "herd".
>
> I have yet to see evidence of this so called "herd".
It only exists in the troll's twisted mind.
--
You just fulfilled the first rule of law enforcement: make sure when
your shift is over you go home alive. Here endeth the lesson.
~ Malone, The Untouchables
Snit
3:50 PM:
> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:15 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
>> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with
>> Stallman and say he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
>
> Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new thread
> for that and why you don't provide a full quote with context?
It was meant mostly for TomB, but if you want a link to the referenced post
I can find it for you.
>> But then TomB and others *defend* Stallman and say that maybe his ideas
>> are no so bad... maybe there is some twist that can be applied that
>> would make his ideas be less repulsive. There is not.
>
> From your latest response I assume I am part of "others". If you suggest
> something like this, please provide a list with people who do what you
> say they did and provide some quotes with some context.
I have not been keeping a list.
> The "twist that can be applied" is the direct words of Richard Stallman:
> "as long as no one is coerced"
Here are his words:
-----
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a
sexual partner were protected by the Constitution,
"prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession
of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also
would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is
unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no
one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice
and narrowmindedness.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly
affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception
could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For
prostitution, a license should be required to ensure
prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should
have training and support in insisting on use of condoms.
This will be an advance in public health, compared with the
situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin
for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it.
Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done
with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use.
Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as
well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy
rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
-----
The first target of this censorship is sites and newsgroups
that supposedly contain "child pornography". This term is
dishonest, since the law defines "child" as "anyone under
18". For instance, Americans of age 16 are hardly children.
They are sexually mature, almost half of them have had sex,
and any normal adult will find them attractive. But our
government calls them "children", with the implication that
being attracted to them makes you a pervert.
-----
The way to protect children from being used to make porn is
to punish those who are involved in the distribution business
together with those who make porn using real children.
-----
When making pornography involves real abuse of real children,
those who distribute it under a business relationship with
the abusers arguably participate in the abuse. They could be
prosecuted for doing so. However, that does not excuse
censorship. No matter how disgusting published works might
be, censorship is more disgusting.
-----
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
-----
The article says that downloading "child" pornography
converted these people into security risks. In the past, when
people could be blackmailed for being gay, the same was said
against homosexuals: that their conduct made them security
risks. We now understand that it was the prejudice against
homosexuality which had that effect.
Note how the article calls it a "problem" that certain people
could not be prosecuted because "it could not be established
that the children had been abused." This shows the dishonesty
of the claim that this is about protecting children. If that
were their real goal, they would say, "We were pleased to
discover in some cases that no children had been abused."
If people are seriously concerned not to let children have
sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that
has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You
have seen the statements certifying that "no animals were
harmed in making this film." There could be a similar
certification that "no minors had sex or were nude with
adults in making this film."
-----
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
very important for education. Blocking adolescents' access to
porn, or keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly.
-----
Don't be fooled by the excuse. Censorship laws are more
dangerous to a democratic society than any pornography could
ever be.
-----
The concept of "sexual interference with a human corpse" is
curious. All a corpse can do is decay, so the only possible
kind of interference is to prevent its decay. Thus, "sexual
interference" ought to mean playing with the corpse's
genitals while injecting embalming fluid, or while putting it
into a refrigerator. However, I doubt that the censors
interpret this term rationally. They will have cooked up an
excuse for some twisted interpretation of the term.
This censorship cannot be justified by protecting corpses
from suffering. Whatever you do to a corpse, it can't suffer,
not even emotionally.
Then there is the prohibition of realistically depicting sex
with an animal. The law does not care whether the animal
wanted sex. I've read that male dolphins try to have sex with
humans, and female apes sollicit sex from humans. What is
wrong with giving them what they want, if that's what turns
you on, or even just to gratify them?
But this law is not concerned with protecting animals, since
it does not care whether the animal really had sex, or really
existed at all. It only panders to the prejudice of censors.
A parrot once had sex with me. I did not recognize the act as
sex until it was explained to me afterward, but being stroked
by his soft feathers was so pleasurable that I yearn for
another chance. I have a photo of that act ; should I go to
prison for it?
Perhaps I am spared because this photo isn't "disgusting",
but "disgusting" is a subjective matter; we must not imprison
people merely because someone feels disgusted. I find the
sight of wounds disgusting; fortunately surgeons do not.
Maybe there is someone who considers it disgusting for a
parrot to have sex with a human. Or for a dolphin or tiger to
have sex with a human. So what? Others feel that all sex is
disgusting.
Threatening people with death or injury is a very bad thing,
but violence is no less bad for being nonsexual. Is it worse
to shoot someone while stroking that person's genitals than
to shoot someone from a few feet away? If I were going to be
the victim, and I were invited to choose one or the other, I
would choose whichever one gave me the best chance to escape.
But since the law doesn't care whether a real human was
really threatened with harm, it is not really concerned about
our safety from violence, any more than it is concerned with
avoiding suffering for corpses or animals. It is only
prejudice, taking a form that can ruin people's lives.
-----
The arrested men are described as "suspected paedophiles", a
cleverly ambiguous term. Just what are they suspected of? Is
it that they do or did something with real children? If so,
the downloaded pictures are not evidence of it. Or is it only
that they might feel an attraction to children? If so, then
they stand accused of nothing but a mental inclination:
thoughtcrime. The term conceals either one injustice or
another, and thus obscures them both.
When pressed, the authorities will say these men are to be
punished for possession of forbidden pictures, not for
anything else. But if that were sincere, why make ambiguous
accusations of something else? The prohibition of these
pictures is really an excuse to lock people up who are
condemned for their thoughts.
-----
He should be investigated.
> In this... thing... http://ompldr.org/vOXF4ZA you have not once even
> attempted to guess what he may have meant with that phrase. The most that
> you produced in that regard was "Coercion is irrelevant".
>
> From Stallmans other comments you quoted I guess he was only speaking of
> youths mature enaugh to make a decision for themselves but I am not tired
> of saying this again: I don't know what he meant. And neither does you
> until you ask him.
Read his comments, I quote them above.
Sure, you can make up stories to defend those comments... maybe. So?
>> But TomB and
>> others defend Stallman because he is a leader in the desktop/Linux
>> world...
>
> Not really. I have said that I barely know anything about him and
> therefore I could easily be wrong. This is still the case.
Then why, above, do you defend him?
>> and because to speak poorly of Stallman would be to risk
>> standing in the COLA "herd".
>
> I have yet to see evidence of this so called "herd".
LOL! Now that is funny. Read any one of my posts where I respond with
"Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" and you will see me responding to an example.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 2011-08-03, the following emerged from the brain of Chris:
>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:15 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>
>>> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with Stallman and
>>> say he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
>>
>> Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new
>> thread for that and why you don't provide a full quote with context?
>
> One reason: because he's a troll. And an extremely nasty one at that.
See: name calling but no argument. The lowest form of "argument", if you
want to even call it that.
>>> But then TomB and others *defend* Stallman and say that maybe his
>>> ideas are no so bad... maybe there is some twist that can be
>>> applied that would make his ideas be less repulsive. There is not.
>>
>> From your latest response I assume I am part of "others". If you
>> suggest something like this, please provide a list with people who
>> do what you say they did and provide some quotes with some context.
>>
>> The "twist that can be applied" is the direct words of Richard
>> Stallman: "as long as no one is coerced"
>>
>> In this... thing... http://ompldr.org/vOXF4ZA you have not once even
>> attempted to guess what he may have meant with that phrase. The most
>> that you produced in that regard was "Coercion is irrelevant".
>
> Of course. When something doesn't fit in the troll's agenda, it's
> 'irrelevant'.
Here are his words:
-----
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a
sexual partner were protected by the Constitution,
"prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession
of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also
would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is
unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no
one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice
and narrowmindedness.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly
I refuse to do as you and others are doing and try to second guess them - I
take them at face value.
>> From Stallmans other comments you quoted I guess he was only
>> speaking of youths mature enaugh to make a decision for themselves
>> but I am not tired of saying this again: I don't know what he meant.
>> And neither does you until you ask him.
>
> Exactly. And at least you and I are intelligent enough to not jump to
> wild conclusions, and morally stable enough not to spew outrageous
> accusations.
What accusations have I "spewed"? Oh... you have no examples. Funny that,
eh?
>>> But TomB and others defend Stallman because he is a leader in the
>>> desktop/Linux world...
>>
>> Not really. I have said that I barely know anything about him and
>> therefore I could easily be wrong. This is still the case.
>>
>>> and because to speak poorly of Stallman would be to risk standing
>>> in the COLA "herd".
>>
>> I have yet to see evidence of this so called "herd".
>
> It only exists in the troll's twisted mind.
And yet there are frequent and obvious examples. How do you explain that?
Oh, you run... with your herd. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris
> Chris stated in post j1cjch$c48$2...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
> 8/3/11 3:50 PM:
>
>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:15 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>
>>> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with Stallman and say
>>> he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
>>
>> Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new
>> thread for that and why you don't provide a full quote with context?
>
> It was meant mostly for TomB, but if you want a link to the referenced
> post I can find it for you.
That doesn't really answer the question...
>>> But then TomB and others *defend* Stallman and say that maybe his
>>> ideas are no so bad... maybe there is some twist that can be applied
>>> that would make his ideas be less repulsive. There is not.
>>
>> From your latest response I assume I am part of "others". If you
>> suggest something like this, please provide a list with people who do
>> what you say they did and provide some quotes with some context.
>
> I have not been keeping a list.
Of course not.
>> The "twist that can be applied" is the direct words of Richard
>> Stallman: "as long as no one is coerced"
>
> Here are his words:
>
> as long as no one is coerced.
The phrase you always omit. What do you think he wants to say with that?
> "child pornography". This term is dishonest,
> since the law defines "child" as "anyone under 18". For instance,
> Americans _of age 16_ are hardly children. They are sexually mature,
> almost half of them have had sex, and any normal adult will find
> them attractive. But our government calls them "children", with the
> implication that being attracted to them makes you a pervert.
16 year olds, sexually mature. Why do you think he chose that example?
My suggestion: Because that is what he is talking about all along.
Provide evidence against that suggestion, please?
> punish those who are involved in the distribution business together
> with those who make porn using real children.
I think he clearly defends all aspects of child pornography here as you
imply.
Wait, he doesn't.
> cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents
> who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
Maturing. I said what I think it means here. I don't think that's
"twisting" something. What do you think he wants to say with that?
> This shows the dishonesty of the claim
> that this is about protecting children. If that were their real
> goal, they would say, "We were pleased to discover in some cases
> that no children had been abused."
"some cases", meaning rather few in many. What do you think it means
other than a little "subset" that you argued somewhere he didn't mean?
What do you think he wants to say with that?
> He should be investigated.
I snipped the quotes that had nothing to do with the topic.
But as you can see I have a good basis to think that he is talking about
sexually mature 16 year olds from what _you_ quoted.
If you can provide evidence that this is not the case then I'm with you.
I already said that elsewhere. But if not, then not.
>> In this... thing... http://ompldr.org/vOXF4ZA you have not once even
>> attempted to guess what he may have meant with that phrase. The most
>> that you produced in that regard was "Coercion is irrelevant".
>>
>> From Stallmans other comments you quoted I guess he was only speaking
>> of youths mature enaugh to make a decision for themselves but I am not
>> tired of saying this again: I don't know what he meant. And neither
>> does you until you ask him.
>
> Read his comments, I quote them above.
>
> Sure, you can make up stories to defend those comments... maybe. So?
How did I "make up stories" in what I commented to the quotes?
>>> But TomB and others defend Stallman because he is a leader in the
>>> desktop/Linux world...
>>
>> Not really. I have said that I barely know anything about him and
>> therefore I could easily be wrong. This is still the case.
>
> Then why, above, do you defend him?
I don't. I said I got that impression from his own words. How is that
"defending" him?
I too have a question:
Why do you deny that the phrase "as long as no one is coerced", his
examples of sexually mature 16 year olds or his constraint to "some
cases" have any meaning whatsoever?
>>> and because to speak poorly of Stallman would be to risk standing in
>>> the COLA "herd".
>>
>> I have yet to see evidence of this so called "herd".
>
> LOL! Now that is funny. Read any one of my posts where I respond with
> "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" and you will see me responding to an
> example.
So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person then
it's a "herd". Interesting.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:55:12 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
> <snip>
>
> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person then
> it's a "herd". Interesting.
Snit has grown quite grotesque. Let him be.
--
Unix gives you just enough rope to hang yourself -- and then a couple
of more feet, just to be sure.
-- Eric Allman
... We make rope.
-- Rob Gingell on Sun Microsystem's new virtual memory.
Snit
12:36 AM:
> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:55:12 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
>> Chris stated in post j1cjch$c48$2...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
>> 8/3/11 3:50 PM:
>>
>>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:15 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>>
>>>> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with Stallman and say
>>>> he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
>>>
>>> Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new
>>> thread for that and why you don't provide a full quote with context?
>>
>> It was meant mostly for TomB, but if you want a link to the referenced
>> post I can find it for you.
>
> That doesn't really answer the question...
TomB made serious and false accusations. This thread is responds to them.
>>>> But then TomB and others *defend* Stallman and say that maybe his
>>>> ideas are no so bad... maybe there is some twist that can be applied
>>>> that would make his ideas be less repulsive. There is not.
>>>
>>> From your latest response I assume I am part of "others". If you
>>> suggest something like this, please provide a list with people who do
>>> what you say they did and provide some quotes with some context.
>>
>> I have not been keeping a list.
>
> Of course not.
>
>>> The "twist that can be applied" is the direct words of Richard
>>> Stallman: "as long as no one is coerced"
>>
>> Here are his words:
>>
>> as long as no one is coerced.
>
> The phrase you always omit. What do you think he wants to say with that?
I do not "always omit" it. I have talked about why the concept of coercion
is absurd when it comes to trying to excuse abusing children.
Again: why try to twist his words into something you think is not as
When making pornography involves real abuse of real children,
those who distribute it under a business relationship with
the abusers arguably participate in the abuse. They could be
prosecuted for doing so. However, that does not excuse
censorship. No matter how disgusting published works might
be, censorship is more disgusting.
-----
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
-----
The article says that downloading "child" pornography
converted these people into security risks. In the past, when
people could be blackmailed for being gay, the same was said
against homosexuals: that their conduct made them security
risks. We now understand that it was the prejudice against
homosexuality which had that effect.
-----
-----
It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of
age 15 � it is normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex.
-----
The first target of this censorship is sites and newsgroups
that supposedly contain "child pornography". This term is
dishonest, since the law defines "child" as "anyone under
18". For instance, Americans of age 16 are hardly children.
They are sexually mature, almost half of them have had sex,
and any normal adult will find them attractive. But our
government calls them "children", with the implication that
being attracted to them makes you a pervert.
-----
The harsh attitude towards men who are attracted to children,
manifested in the systematic attempts to arrest people for
merely looking at pictures, could be perversely making it
more likely they will try to have sex with children.
-----
And there is no defense for him. None.
>> "child pornography". This term is dishonest,
>> since the law defines "child" as "anyone under 18". For instance,
>> Americans _of age 16_ are hardly children. They are sexually mature,
>> almost half of them have had sex, and any normal adult will find
>> them attractive. But our government calls them "children", with the
>> implication that being attracted to them makes you a pervert.
>
> 16 year olds, sexually mature. Why do you think he chose that example?
> My suggestion: Because that is what he is talking about all along.
> Provide evidence against that suggestion, please?
Look at what he writes.
>> punish those who are involved in the distribution business together
>> with those who make porn using real children.
>
> I think he clearly defends all aspects of child pornography here as you
> imply.
>
> Wait, he doesn't.
>
>> cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents
>> who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
>
> Maturing. I said what I think it means here. I don't think that's
> "twisting" something. What do you think he wants to say with that?
You are making excuses for him. Read his own words.
>> This shows the dishonesty of the claim
>> that this is about protecting children. If that were their real
>> goal, they would say, "We were pleased to discover in some cases
>> that no children had been abused."
>
> "some cases", meaning rather few in many. What do you think it means
> other than a little "subset" that you argued somewhere he didn't mean?
> What do you think he wants to say with that?
>
>> He should be investigated.
>
> I snipped the quotes that had nothing to do with the topic.
His comments are the topic.
> But as you can see I have a good basis to think that he is talking about
> sexually mature 16 year olds from what _you_ quoted.
In some cases he focuses on that age. In some his cutoff is 15. On others
he has no cutoff at all.
> If you can provide evidence that this is not the case then I'm with you.
> I already said that elsewhere. But if not, then not.
Read his words. Really: I am *not* going to interpret them for you.
I keep being accused of interpreting them in some dishonest way - but you
are the one one making excuses and trying to come up with creative
interpretations of his words. And snipping his words.
>>> In this... thing... http://ompldr.org/vOXF4ZA you have not once even
>>> attempted to guess what he may have meant with that phrase. The most
>>> that you produced in that regard was "Coercion is irrelevant".
>>>
>>> From Stallmans other comments you quoted I guess he was only speaking
>>> of youths mature enaugh to make a decision for themselves but I am not
>>> tired of saying this again: I don't know what he meant. And neither
>>> does you until you ask him.
>>
>> Read his comments, I quote them above.
>>
>> Sure, you can make up stories to defend those comments... maybe. So?
>
> How did I "make up stories" in what I commented to the quotes?
You are coming up with creative ways to try to excuse his words.
A normal person, reading his words, would be appalled. Heck, I have shared
his comments with quite a few people now - the *only* ones who are not
appalled are those with an agenda to defend people important to the desktop
Linux world. You generally are more rational than you are being here - but
step back and think how you would feel if Joe Schmoe was writing those words
online and it was not Stallman.
The idea he should be investigated based on his own words is really not
something worth debating. Read his words.
>>>> But TomB and others defend Stallman because he is a leader in the
>>>> desktop/Linux world...
>>>
>>> Not really. I have said that I barely know anything about him and
>>> therefore I could easily be wrong. This is still the case.
>>
>> Then why, above, do you defend him?
>
> I don't. I said I got that impression from his own words. How is that
> "defending" him?
>
> I too have a question:
> Why do you deny that the phrase "as long as no one is coerced", his
> examples of sexually mature 16 year olds or his constraint to "some
> cases" have any meaning whatsoever?
As noted: you can pull snippets of quotes out of context to try to build a
defense for him... but that is not an honest way to read his comments.
>>>> and because to speak poorly of Stallman would be to risk standing in
>>>> the COLA "herd".
>>>
>>> I have yet to see evidence of this so called "herd".
>>
>> LOL! Now that is funny. Read any one of my posts where I respond with
>> "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" and you will see me responding to an
>> example.
>
> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person then
> it's a "herd". Interesting.
Nope. Not at all. Where would you get that idea?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> Chris wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:55:12 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person then
>> it's a "herd". Interesting.
>
> Snit has grown quite grotesque. Let him be.
Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!
See: there is an example. Chris A. claims to not read my comments - but he
often jumps in and pretends to know about my views and what I stand for. He
also repeatedly lies about me (the above is "just" an opinion, but elsewhere
he just flat out lies). The "herd" accepts and supports his behavior...
never calling him out on his dishonesty.
Nothing at all to do with some form of "reasonable agreeing".
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
If a couple of people agree on something that the troll doesn't agree
on, they're a herd. It's one of his most pathetic trolls.
--
There are only 10 types of people in this world: those who understand
binary, and those who don't...
Snit
> On 2011-08-04, the following emerged from the brain of Chris:
>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:55:12 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>
>>> LOL! Now that is funny. Read any one of my posts where I respond
>>> with "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" and you will see me responding to
>>> an example.
>>
>> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person
>> then it's a "herd". Interesting.
>
> If a couple of people agree on something that the troll doesn't agree
> on, they're a herd. It's one of his most pathetic trolls.
That is not at all what is meant by the "herd". And a reasonable person
would not make such a claim. But continue to prove me right about you.
Sadly.
There are times you rise above that. Often... but then you let the herd
pull you down again. It is a pattern with you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
> Chris wrote:
>>
>> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person then
>> it's a "herd". Interesting.
What's funny is that the advocates are invariably correct. Being on
the (clearly) correct side of an issue, along with others, makes for a
"stampede", apparently.
>Snit has grown quite grotesque. Let him be.
Grown?
Snit
5:54 AM:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person then
>>> it's a "herd". Interesting.
>
> What's funny is that the advocates are invariably correct. Being on
> the (clearly) correct side of an issue, along with others, makes for a
> "stampede", apparently.
Nope.
The "stampede" is when one of the "herd" makes an accusation that is not
supported (and, in most cases, clearly cannot be supported) and others in
COLA jump up and down in feigned agreement. Given how none of the
"advocates" can actually support the claim there is no reason to think any
of them *actually* agree to the claim - but they pretend to in order to
dodge some topic.
In this case, the topic is Stallman's grotesque comments - comments much
more repulsive than his eating things from his feet - comments that would
lead a normal person to see it as very reasonable to want him investigated.
>> Snit has grown quite grotesque. Let him be.
>
> Grown?
See: feigned agreement with an insult associated with an accusation... but
based on *no* evidence or support or, well, anything other than herd
mentality.
In other words: no "reasonably agreeing" going on - just mob behavior...
defending your own against outside ideas... ideas you know you have no
counter for.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hyman Roth
useless rat shit "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3g5l37590aiod29uc...@4ax.com...
>
> Grown?
>
why don't you grow up asshole and quit talking about trolls and plonking
your entire fscking life.
"chrisv" is a documented liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.
Gregory Shearman
Please dump this argument.
You've been hooked.... and the trolls are dragging you in.
Who the fuck cares what Stallman said? His coding is absolutely
BRILLIANT and that is ALL that matters in this newsgroup. If you don't
like it then take your argument and fuck off elsewhere.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
chrisv
> Chris <chris...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>Please dump this argument.
>
>You've been hooked.... and the trolls are dragging you in.
>
>Who the fuck cares what Stallman said? His coding is absolutely
>BRILLIANT and that is ALL that matters in this newsgroup. If you don't
>like it then take your argument and fuck off elsewhere.
His ethics are to be admired, as well.
If he makes his opinions public, it's proof positive that he is not
ashamed of them - proof positive that he's not afraid of looking "bad"
- proof positive that he isn't saying anything "bad".
Does anyone *really* think that he would go on the record as
supporting something that is "clearly bad"?
The man continues to be admired and continues to be bestowed with
various honors. Clearly, the reasonable world considers his work to
be laudable and his views to be reasonable.
Hyman Roth
child molester "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ugal37d6tf8v940pq...@4ax.com...
> If he makes his opinions public, it's proof positive that he is not
> ashamed of them - proof positive that he's not afraid of looking "bad"
> - proof positive that he isn't saying anything "bad".
he wants to have sex with little kids. only a complete jackass asshole like
you would support a screwball like that.
what a asshole you are. supporting a nearly 60 year old who wants to fsck
little kids.
sheeesh - what the fsck is wrong with you asshole?
Gary Stewart
> On 2011-08-04, Chris <chris...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Please dump this argument.
good idea because his argument holds no water.
> You've been hooked.... and the trolls are dragging you in.
Trying to defend the indefensible isn't getting hooked.
It's blind zealotism coupled with a degree stupidity and ignorance.
> Who the fuck cares what Stallman said? His coding is absolutely
> BRILLIANT and that is ALL that matters in this newsgroup. If you don't
> like it then take your argument and fuck off elsewhere.
Yea, and Hans Reiser was a brilliant coder as well and he murdered
his wife.
I suppose you Linux loons will consider that acceptable as well.
Didn't a couple of you kooks try and blame it on Microsoft if I
recall?
Schestowitz or Rick maybe?
What is it with Linux "advocates" and their willingness to accept
deviants into the fold?
I've been saying it for years.
I just never realized how utterly twisted you people really are.
It's pathetic.
--
8/4/2011 11:46:09 AM
Gary Stewart
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Come laugh at Linux "advocacy" with us!
http://www.youtube.com/social/blog/techrights-org
Linux's dismal desktop market share:
http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop
glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Desktop Linux on Life Support:
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/is-linux-on-the-desktop-dead--961508
When I use the term Linux I am speaking of desktop Linux unless
otherwise stated.
Gary Stewart
This time it's the whole COLA Linux "advocate" cabal.
Tell me I am hallucinating because even *I* can't believe these
Linux "advocates" would sink that low.
And they get upset when I call them Linux vermin?
Vermin is too good a word from what I am seeing.
--
8/4/2011 11:50:08 AM
Gary Stewart
Hahah!
You mortally wounded the entire COLA cabal with one well placed shot
to their leader.
Well done! Although I find the subject quite troubling.
Could you imagine if this was Gates or Jobs?
They would be having a field day over it.
But, since it's their icon they blindly accept it.
No surprise though seeing as it's the way they operate.
See Rex and 7 for other bizarre people who get a free pass in COLA
no matter how insane and untrue their comments might be.
Bet your business on Linux?
Better take a look at the Linux community first and see what your
first line of support is going to be.
--
8/4/2011 11:51:38 AM
Snit
8/4/11 8:56 AM:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 04:29:30 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post j1drcv$jfv$3...@dont-email.me on 8/4/11 3:09 AM:
>>
>>> Chris wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:55:12 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person then
>>>> it's a "herd". Interesting.
>>>
>>> Snit has grown quite grotesque. Let him be.
>>
>> Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!
>>
>> See: there is an example. Chris A. claims to not read my comments - but he
>> often jumps in and pretends to know about my views and what I stand for. He
>> also repeatedly lies about me (the above is "just" an opinion, but elsewhere
>> he just flat out lies). The "herd" accepts and supports his behavior...
>> never calling him out on his dishonesty.
>>
>> Nothing at all to do with some form of "reasonable agreeing".
>
> Hahah!
> You mortally wounded the entire COLA cabal with one well placed shot
> to their leader.
> Well done! Although I find the subject quite troubling.
Frankly I was shocked to find this. Yes, I know Stallman is a bit of an odd
one... but I never thought of him as being quite likely dangerous in this
way.
> Could you imagine if this was Gates or Jobs?
> They would be having a field day over it.
They would go completely insane over it. Heck, Gates pays for vaccines and
some of them go ape over it.
> But, since it's their icon they blindly accept it.
They *defend* him... at least many do.
> No surprise though seeing as it's the way they operate.
>
> See Rex and 7 for other bizarre people who get a free pass in COLA
> no matter how insane and untrue their comments might be.
>
> Bet your business on Linux?
> Better take a look at the Linux community first and see what your
> first line of support is going to be.
It is amazing how angry the "advocates" have gotten with *me* over what
Stallman posts.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
White Spirit
> On 2011-08-04, Chris<chris...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Please dump this argument.
> You've been hooked.... and the trolls are dragging you in.
You have to wonder just why Snit is focussing on this so much that it
manages to eclipse his normal level of obsessive behaviour.
I think, perhaps, he protests too much...
Gary Stewart
I truly believe at least some of them are so mentally ill and
absorbed with Linux that they have forgotten reality and the real
world.
Anything that doesn't fit into their somewhat twisted mentality and
point of view sets them off on an angry tirade.
Look at Chris Ahlstrom for example and his penchant for starting new
threads when a negative to Linux thread appears.
There is something wrong with a person like that who can't accept
reality.
It makes me wonder how they are able to function in everyday life?
Do they go berserk when a traffic light turns red on them?
When the cashier gives the wrong change?
When the ATM is out of money?
The whole thing just seems very bizarre to me.
Most people here know I was never a fan of Vista, never bought it,
had no intention of ever using it. My solution was simple, if
Microsoft couldn't release a decent successor to Windows XP within a
reasonable amount of time, I was moving my DAW to a Mac.
Real simple.
No frothing.
No twitching.
No defending Vista.
Just a simple solution.
Linux COLA "advocates" can't seem to be able to do that.
They will defend what can't be defended and never back down or admit
faults no matter how foolish it makes them look to others.
--
8/4/2011 12:25:33 PM
Chris
> Chris stated in post j1di5n$m6s$1...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
> 8/4/11 12:36 AM:
>
>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:55:12 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>
>>> Chris stated in post j1cjch$c48$2...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
>>> 8/3/11 3:50 PM:
>>>
>>>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:15 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>>>
>>>>> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with Stallman and say
>>>>> he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new
>>>> thread for that and why you don't provide a full quote with context?
>>>
>>> It was meant mostly for TomB, but if you want a link to the referenced
>>> post I can find it for you.
>>
>> That doesn't really answer the question...
>
> TomB made serious and false accusations. This thread is responds to
> them.
The question again:
Why did you create a *new* thread to respond?
Why did you recount the whole thing in your own words instead of just
quoting?
I mean, it's obvious that there is a high risk of losing accuracy of the
original thread when narrating it in your own words...
>>>>> But then TomB and others *defend* Stallman and say that maybe his
>>>>> ideas are no so bad... maybe there is some twist that can be applied
>>>>> that would make his ideas be less repulsive. There is not.
>>>>
>>>> From your latest response I assume I am part of "others". If you
>>>> suggest something like this, please provide a list with people who do
>>>> what you say they did and provide some quotes with some context.
>>>
>>> I have not been keeping a list.
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>>>> The "twist that can be applied" is the direct words of Richard
>>>> Stallman: "as long as no one is coerced"
>>>
>>> Here are his words:
>>>
>>> as long as no one is coerced.
>>
>> The phrase you always omit. What do you think he wants to say with
>> that?
>
> I do not "always omit" it.
Yes you do. In your copypaste message
"Stallman defended pedophilia and child porn claiming people are against
them based on prejudice and narrowmindedness."
I have not counted how often you simply repeated that message instead of
actually elaborating on what was said. But it was often enaugh.
> I have talked about why the concept of
> coercion is absurd when it comes to trying to excuse abusing children.
You have said "It is wrong". That's hardly "talked about why [...]"
anything.
> Again: why try to twist his words into something you think is not as
> offensive? And why snip his words? Here is what Stallman says:
I believe I didn't snip context that would change the meaning of anything
I commented on.
If I am wrong, then please show me exactly where.
> ...
> -----
> The harsh attitude towards men who are attracted to children,
> manifested in the systematic attempts to arrest people for merely
> looking at pictures, could be perversely making it more likely they
> will try to have sex with children.
> -----
Funny how you change your list without indicating that this wasn't on the
list two posts back.
> And there is no defense for him. None.
If he said what according to you he said, no. But as I read it he didn't.
Simply as that.
>>> "child pornography". This term is dishonest,
>>> since the law defines "child" as "anyone under 18". For instance,
>>> Americans _of age 16_ are hardly children. They are sexually
>>> mature,
>>> almost half of them have had sex, and any normal adult will find
>>> them attractive. But our government calls them "children", with
>>> the implication that being attracted to them makes you a pervert.
>>
>> 16 year olds, sexually mature. Why do you think he chose that example?
>> My suggestion: Because that is what he is talking about all along.
>> Provide evidence against that suggestion, please?
>
> Look at what he writes.
I did. He wrote about an example with sexually mature 16 year old
Americans. That's one of your "fringe cases" he supposedly doesn't mean
in general. Yet it is his primary example.
I asked you whether you have an argument why my conclusion is wrong.
Seems you haven't.
>>> punish those who are involved in the distribution business
>>> together with those who make porn using real children.
>>
>> I think he clearly defends all aspects of child pornography here as you
>> imply.
>>
>> Wait, he doesn't.
>>
>>> cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents
>>> who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
>>
>> Maturing. I said what I think it means here. I don't think that's
>> "twisting" something. What do you think he wants to say with that?
>
> You are making excuses for him. Read his own words.
I did. And I can't find what you say. I am honestly understanding it the
way I describe it to you. Why is it so hard to speak about that?
>>> This shows the dishonesty of the claim that this is about
>>> protecting children. If that were their real goal, they would say,
>>> "We were pleased to discover in some cases that no children had
>>> been abused."
>>
>> "some cases", meaning rather few in many. What do you think it means
>> other than a little "subset" that you argued somewhere he didn't mean?
>> What do you think he wants to say with that?
>>
>>> He should be investigated.
>>
>> I snipped the quotes that had nothing to do with the topic.
>
> His comments are the topic.
I thought "TomB and his accusations" are the topic?
>> But as you can see I have a good basis to think that he is talking
>> about sexually mature 16 year olds from what _you_ quoted.
>
> In some cases he focuses on that age. In some his cutoff is 15. On
> others he has no cutoff at all.
Exactly.
>> If you can provide evidence that this is not the case then I'm with
>> you.
>> I already said that elsewhere. But if not, then not.
>
> Read his words. Really: I am *not* going to interpret them for you.
Of course you aren't.
Since you seem to be unable to make a coherent argument I'll leave it
there.
> I keep being accused of interpreting them in some dishonest way - but
> you are the one one making excuses and trying to come up with creative
> interpretations of his words. And snipping his words.
As I said I believe I didn't snip context that would change the meaning
of anything. The original is two posts above, if you have an objection,
then you're free to tell me.
Also I ask you to explain where I got "creative". I asked you several
question why you think that my comments are not what he meant and yet the
only reply you come up with is "read his words".
>>>> In this... thing... http://ompldr.org/vOXF4ZA you have not once even
>>>> attempted to guess what he may have meant with that phrase. The most
>>>> that you produced in that regard was "Coercion is irrelevant".
>>>>
>>>> From Stallmans other comments you quoted I guess he was only speaking
>>>> of youths mature enaugh to make a decision for themselves but I am
>>>> not tired of saying this again: I don't know what he meant. And
>>>> neither does you until you ask him.
>>>
>>> Read his comments, I quote them above.
>>>
>>> Sure, you can make up stories to defend those comments... maybe. So?
>>
>> How did I "make up stories" in what I commented to the quotes?
>
> You are coming up with creative ways to try to excuse his words.
How were my comments "creative"? I asked you why you think different than
me. No answer yet.
> A normal person, reading his words, would be appalled.
The opinion of "normal people" is pretty much irrelevant.
> Heck, I have
> shared his comments with quite a few people now - the *only* ones who
> are not appalled are
Why do I find it hard to believe that you did so in an unbiased way?
> those with an agenda to defend people important to
> the desktop Linux world.
What "agenda"? What are you talking about?
I just have a slight bias but I am well aware of that as I said and I am
ready to be proven wrong.
Did you by the way write to him and ask for a comprehensive statement
regarding his views?
> You generally are more rational than you are
> being here - but step back and think how you would feel if Joe Schmoe
> was writing those words online and it was not Stallman.
>
> The idea he should be investigated based on his own words is really not
> something worth debating. Read his words.
Actually I find it not worth debating that his words are open to
interpretation. You could be right, I could be right, we could both be
wrong. I just say it's wrong for you to be so sure about your
interpretation.
>>>>> But TomB and others defend Stallman because he is a leader in the
>>>>> desktop/Linux world...
>>>>
>>>> Not really. I have said that I barely know anything about him and
>>>> therefore I could easily be wrong. This is still the case.
>>>
>>> Then why, above, do you defend him?
>>
>> I don't. I said I got that impression from his own words. How is that
>> "defending" him?
>>
>> I too have a question:
>> Why do you deny that the phrase "as long as no one is coerced", his
>> examples of sexually mature 16 year olds or his constraint to "some
>> cases" have any meaning whatsoever?
>
> As noted: you can pull snippets of quotes out of context to try to build
> a defense for him... but that is not an honest way to read his comments.
I don't "try to build a defense for him". That is directly what you
quoted from him and that apparently has no meaning whatsoever to you
since your argument was:
"Stallman defended pedophilia and child porn claiming people are against
them based on prejudice and narrowmindedness."
You pulled this out of the context of "as long as no one is coerced".
The bigger context is that in no quote he hinted that he does not mean
something different from what you call "fringe cases", whereas in some
quotes he hints that he means exactly this.
As please show me where there is context I snipped that changes any
meaning.
>>>>> and because to speak poorly of Stallman would be to risk standing in
>>>>> the COLA "herd".
>>>>
>>>> I have yet to see evidence of this so called "herd".
>>>
>>> LOL! Now that is funny. Read any one of my posts where I respond
>>> with "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" and you will see me responding to an
>>> example.
>>
>> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person
>> then it's a "herd". Interesting.
>
> Nope. Not at all. Where would you get that idea?
From reading your posts.
ddt
>
> Yea, and Hans Reiser was a brilliant coder as well and he murdered
> his wife.
>
> I suppose you Linux loons will consider that acceptable as well.
> Didn't a couple of you kooks try and blame it on Microsoft if I
> recall?
> Schestowitz or Rick maybe?
>
Schestowitz and Rick.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/15bf6bba3bda8d7b?hl=en&dmode=source&output=gplain
"Maybe he knows where the body is because he saw where it was put."
TomB
8<
> Why did you create a *new* thread to respond?
Because he's a filthy troll.
> I thought "TomB and his accusations" are the topic?
What accusations, I wonder. It's the troll who accused me of
supporting pedophilia.
> What "agenda"? What are you talking about?
Next to being an obsessive and obtuse troll, he's also extremely
paranoid.
--
The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents,
and the second half by our children.
~ Clarence Darrow
Gary Stewart
> On 2011-08-04, the following emerged from the brain of Chris:
>
> 8<
>
>> Why did you create a *new* thread to respond?
>
> Because he's a filthy troll.
Interesting you don't say anything about Chris Ahlstrom creating new
threads all the time.
Personally I'm glad you don't because it makes him look like an
idiot, but I would think your side wouldn't like that.
--
8/4/2011 1:12:40 PM
Snit
9:21 AM:
> Am Thu, 04 Aug 2011 04:27:40 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
>> Chris stated in post j1di5n$m6s$1...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
>> 8/4/11 12:36 AM:
>>
>>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:55:12 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>>
>>>> Chris stated in post j1cjch$c48$2...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
>>>> 8/3/11 3:50 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:15 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with Stallman and say
>>>>>> he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new
>>>>> thread for that and why you don't provide a full quote with context?
>>>>
>>>> It was meant mostly for TomB, but if you want a link to the referenced
>>>> post I can find it for you.
>>>
>>> That doesn't really answer the question...
>>
>> TomB made serious and false accusations. This thread is responds to
>> them.
>
> The question again:
> Why did you create a *new* thread to respond?
Why not? People create threads all the time. This thread is a somewhat
different topic than the other.
> Why did you recount the whole thing in your own words instead of just
> quoting?
I offered to quote and you showed no interest. Here, the quote from TomB:
<201108030...@usenet.drumscum.be>
-----
Okay Snit, you have crossed a line here. Suggest *one* more
time that I'm am somehow support child pornography and
pedophilia, and I will contact an attorney myself. This is
slander.
...
So again: suggest *ONE* more time that I am supporting child
pornography and pedophilia, and I will take this beyond
usenet.
-----
<201108031...@usenet.drumscum.be>
-----
Snit really went to far this this time. Look at the bit you
quoted above, where he suggests that I'm *supporting* child
pornography and pedophilia. Pure slanter.
-----
Of course, TomB never actually supported his accusations against me... he
*claimed* I was accusing him of more than just defending Stallman's perverse
words but of *agreeing* with them. Not even TomB went so far as to say he
agrees with Stallman, though he has now suggested he would not have a
problem, in principle, if his 13 year old daughter was dating someone
Stallman's age.
Which I find repulsive.
> I mean, it's obvious that there is a high risk of losing accuracy of the
> original thread when narrating it in your own words...
>>>>>> But then TomB and others *defend* Stallman and say that maybe his
>>>>>> ideas are no so bad... maybe there is some twist that can be applied
>>>>>> that would make his ideas be less repulsive. There is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> From your latest response I assume I am part of "others". If you
>>>>> suggest something like this, please provide a list with people who do
>>>>> what you say they did and provide some quotes with some context.
>>>>
>>>> I have not been keeping a list.
>>>
>>> Of course not.
>>>
>>>>> The "twist that can be applied" is the direct words of Richard
>>>>> Stallman: "as long as no one is coerced"
>>>>
>>>> Here are his words:
>>>>
>>>> as long as no one is coerced.
>>>
>>> The phrase you always omit. What do you think he wants to say with
>>> that?
>>
>> I do not "always omit" it.
>
> Yes you do. In your copypaste message
I repeatedly include it and much more in my quotes of Stallman... and you
snip his words. Here they are, again (with some added from previous lists):
-----
Don't be fooled by the excuse. Censorship laws are more
dangerous to a democratic society than any pornography could
ever be.
-----
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
-----
If people are seriously concerned not to let children have
sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that
has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You
have seen the statements certifying that "no animals were
harmed in making this film." There could be a similar
certification that "no minors had sex or were nude with
adults in making this film."
-----
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
very important for education. Blocking adolescents' access to
porn, or keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly.
-----
It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of
age 15 � it is normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex.
-----
The arrested men are described as "suspected paedophiles", a
cleverly ambiguous term. Just what are they suspected of? Is
it that they do or did something with real children? If so,
the downloaded pictures are not evidence of it. Or is it only
that they might feel an attraction to children? If so, then
they stand accused of nothing but a mental inclination:
thoughtcrime. The term conceals either one injustice or
another, and thus obscures them both.
When pressed, the authorities will say these men are to be
punished for possession of forbidden pictures, not for
anything else. But if that were sincere, why make ambiguous
accusations of something else? The prohibition of these
pictures is really an excuse to lock people up who are
condemned for their thoughts.
-----
The article says that downloading "child" pornography
converted these people into security risks. In the past, when
people could be blackmailed for being gay, the same was said
against homosexuals: that their conduct made them security
risks. We now understand that it was the prejudice against
homosexuality which had that effect.
Note how the article calls it a "problem" that certain people
could not be prosecuted because "it could not be established
that the children had been abused." This shows the dishonesty
of the claim that this is about protecting children. If that
were their real goal, they would say, "We were pleased to
discover in some cases that no children had been abused."
If people are seriously concerned not to let children have
sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that
has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You
have seen the statements certifying that "no animals were
harmed in making this film." There could be a similar
certification that "no minors had sex or were nude with
adults in making this film."
-----
The concept of "sexual interference with a human corpse" is
curious. All a corpse can do is decay, so the only possible
kind of interference is to prevent its decay. Thus, "sexual
interference" ought to mean playing with the corpse's
genitals while injecting embalming fluid, or while putting it
into a refrigerator. However, I doubt that the censors
interpret this term rationally. They will have cooked up an
excuse for some twisted interpretation of the term.
This censorship cannot be justified by protecting corpses
from suffering. Whatever you do to a corpse, it can't suffer,
not even emotionally.
-----
The first target of this censorship is sites and newsgroups
that supposedly contain "child pornography". This term is
dishonest, since the law defines "child" as "anyone under
18". For instance, Americans of age 16 are hardly children.
They are sexually mature, almost half of them have had sex,
and any normal adult will find them attractive. But our
government calls them "children", with the implication that
being attracted to them makes you a pervert.
-----
The harsh attitude towards men who are attracted to children,
manifested in the systematic attempts to arrest people for
merely looking at pictures, could be perversely making it
more likely they will try to have sex with children.
-----
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a
sexual partner were protected by the Constitution,
"prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession
of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also
would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is
unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no
one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice
and narrowmindedness.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly
affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception
could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For
prostitution, a license should be required to ensure
prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should
have training and support in insisting on use of condoms.
This will be an advance in public health, compared with the
situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin
for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it.
Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done
with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use.
Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as
well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy
rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
-----
The way to protect children from being used to make porn is
to punish those who are involved in the distribution business
together with those who make porn using real children.
-----
When making pornography involves real abuse of real children,
those who distribute it under a business relationship with
the abusers arguably participate in the abuse. They could be
prosecuted for doing so. However, that does not excuse
censorship. No matter how disgusting published works might
be, censorship is more disgusting.
-----
ARN: <http://goo.gl/bQYjC>
David Ramli: So is child pornography not a good enough reason
to censor the Internet?
Richard Stallman: Certainly not, certainly not a good enough
reason. There are videos I�ve seen that shocked and disgusted
me, but I don�t want to censor them. I do not advocate
censorship just because I or you find them disgusting.
-----
Read those.
> "Stallman defended pedophilia and child porn claiming people are against
> them based on prejudice and narrowmindedness."
>
> I have not counted how often you simply repeated that message instead of
> actually elaborating on what was said. But it was often enaugh.
I am not elaborating on that... I am noting I find it repulsive. Do you
not?
>> I have talked about why the concept of
>> coercion is absurd when it comes to trying to excuse abusing children.
>
> You have said "It is wrong". That's hardly "talked about why [...]"
> anything.
Normal people do not need to convinced that it is wrong for adults to coerce
children into having sex with them.
>> Again: why try to twist his words into something you think is not as
>> offensive? And why snip his words? Here is what Stallman says:
>
> I believe I didn't snip context that would change the meaning of anything
> I commented on.
>
> If I am wrong, then please show me exactly where.
You keep trying to bend his words to be less offensive than they are -
saying, for example, that when he talks about child porn and pedophilia in
general terms he must mean the fringe cases where there is some gray (say an
18 year old dating a 16 year old). To do so, of course, is to twist his
words to be something less offensive.
>> ...
>
>> -----
>> The harsh attitude towards men who are attracted to children,
>> manifested in the systematic attempts to arrest people for merely
>> looking at pictures, could be perversely making it more likely they
>> will try to have sex with children.
>> -----
>
> Funny how you change your list without indicating that this wasn't on the
> list two posts back.
I keep adding to the list as I find more.
>> And there is no defense for him. None.
>
> If he said what according to you he said, no. But as I read it he didn't.
> Simply as that.
What? Except where otherwise noted, *all* of the quotes come from
stallman.org. And only one notes otherwise.
So now you admit that if he said what is quoted from his own site you would
agree that there is no defense for his comments - you just do not believe
the quotes from his own site are really his comments.
Do you not see how absurd your defense of him has become. Do you think his
site was hacked? Do you think he was quoting others without noting it?
Just what is your defense of him here?
...
>> Look at what he writes.
>
> I did. He wrote about an example with sexually mature 16 year old
> Americans. That's one of your "fringe cases" he supposedly doesn't mean
> in general. Yet it is his primary example.
> I asked you whether you have an argument why my conclusion is wrong.
> Seems you haven't.
You assume fringe cases when he talks in general terms. And then you say
that if he really did say what he has said you, too, would not be able to
defend it... but you insinuate someone else said his words:
Chris:
-----
> And there is no defense for him. None.
If he said what according to you he said, no.
-----
Remember, all I have done is quote him.
...
>> You are making excuses for him. Read his own words.
>
> I did. And I can't find what you say. I am honestly understanding it the
> way I describe it to you. Why is it so hard to speak about that?
If you cannot find it, go to stallman.org and do a search. Easy to find.
>>>> This shows the dishonesty of the claim that this is about
>>>> protecting children. If that were their real goal, they would say,
>>>> "We were pleased to discover in some cases that no children had
>>>> been abused."
>>>
>>> "some cases", meaning rather few in many. What do you think it means
>>> other than a little "subset" that you argued somewhere he didn't mean?
>>> What do you think he wants to say with that?
>>>
>>>> He should be investigated.
>>>
>>> I snipped the quotes that had nothing to do with the topic.
>>
>> His comments are the topic.
>
> I thought "TomB and his accusations" are the topic?
And his accusations deal with Stallman's obscene claims.
>>> But as you can see I have a good basis to think that he is talking
>>> about sexually mature 16 year olds from what _you_ quoted.
>>
>> In some cases he focuses on that age. In some his cutoff is 15. On
>> others he has no cutoff at all.
>
> Exactly.
And you have no problem with this.
>>> If you can provide evidence that this is not the case then I'm with you. I
>>> already said that elsewhere. But if not, then not.
>>>
>> Read his words. Really: I am *not* going to interpret them for you.
>>
> Of course you aren't.
>
> Since you seem to be unable to make a coherent argument I'll leave it there.
I am merely noting that Stallman, based in his own words, should be
investigated. This is not something a reasonable person would debate
against.
>> I keep being accused of interpreting them in some dishonest way - but
>> you are the one one making excuses and trying to come up with creative
>> interpretations of his words. And snipping his words.
>
> As I said I believe I didn't snip context that would change the meaning
> of anything. The original is two posts above, if you have an objection,
> then you're free to tell me.
>
> Also I ask you to explain where I got "creative". I asked you several
> question why you think that my comments are not what he meant and yet the
> only reply you come up with is "read his words".
I have repeatedly told you how you are twisting his words: assuming fringe
cases when he speaks of none... making excuses for him. Read his words and
stop making assumptions that he is speaking of something other than what he
says he is speaking of. As you have noted, if you do that then you will not
be able to defend him.
...
>> A normal person, reading his words, would be appalled.
>
> The opinion of "normal people" is pretty much irrelevant.
Oh please. We are not talking gray areas here. I have shown his comments
now to a number of people. The *only* ones not to be appalled are Linux
"advocates"... who would also be appalled if these comments were from
someone outside of their own community. No doubt.
>> Heck, I have shared his comments with quite a few people now - the *only*
>> ones who are not appalled are
>
> Why do I find it hard to believe that you did so in an unbiased way?
Because you do not want to believe someone in the free software community is
bad.
>> those with an agenda to defend people important to
>> the desktop Linux world.
>
> What "agenda"? What are you talking about?
> I just have a slight bias but I am well aware of that as I said and I am
> ready to be proven wrong.
>
> Did you by the way write to him and ask for a comprehensive statement
> regarding his views?
No. Have you you? Are you suggesting I *investigate*?
>> You generally are more rational than you are
>> being here - but step back and think how you would feel if Joe Schmoe
>> was writing those words online and it was not Stallman.
>>
>> The idea he should be investigated based on his own words is really not
>> something worth debating. Read his words.
>
> Actually I find it not worth debating that his words are open to
> interpretation. You could be right, I could be right, we could both be
> wrong. I just say it's wrong for you to be so sure about your
> interpretation.
Remember: I am offering no interpretation... I am quoting and then noting he
should be investigated.
...
>>>> LOL! Now that is funny. Read any one of my posts where I respond
>>>> with "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" and you will see me responding to an
>>>> example.
>>>
>>> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person
>>> then it's a "herd". Interesting.
>>
>> Nope. Not at all. Where would you get that idea?
>
> From reading your posts.
Cop out answer. Do you have examples? If I have used the term "herd"
inappropriately or noted someone stampeding when they were actually showing
any sign of believing their insults, accusations and attacks then please
quote it. To the contrary, those that stampede with the herd make such
accusations and insults and *always* run when asked to actually back them.
Always.
If you can find a counter example I will be happy to rescind my claim for
that case... but I suspect you will not.
Oh, and note that this has *nothing* to do with your claim about someone
"reasonably agreeing" with another person. Nothing at all.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Ah, I note Stallman's words are repulsive... others defend him... I note
their "defense" is not based on anything reasonable... so you suggest I am
like Stallman.
Real classy of you!
Do not worry, the herd will rejoice at your suggestion.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
>"Maybe he knows where the body is because he saw where it was put."
Rick was an idiot.
Hyman Roth
documented liar "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2nll371396lrivifr...@4ax.com...
>
> Rick was an idiot.
and "chrisv" was, is and will continue to be a useless piece of shit turd.
Snit
8/4/11 9:31 AM:
>>> No surprise though seeing as it's the way they operate.
>>>
>>> See Rex and 7 for other bizarre people who get a free pass in COLA
>>> no matter how insane and untrue their comments might be.
>>>
>>> Bet your business on Linux?
>>> Better take a look at the Linux community first and see what your
>>> first line of support is going to be.
>>
>> It is amazing how angry the "advocates" have gotten with *me* over what
>> Stallman posts.
>
> I truly believe at least some of them are so mentally ill and
> absorbed with Linux that they have forgotten reality and the real
> world.
Even Chris is defending Stallman on this. I would not have expected that...
he just repeatedly twists Stallman's words to add an assumption of a fringe
case (say an 18 yr old dating a 16 yr old). This is the case even when
Stallman not only adds no such stipulation but makes it clear that is *not*
the case, such as when he says:
-----
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
-----
Notice: "children". Not " adolescents".
-----
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
very important for education. Blocking adolescents' access to
porn, or keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly.
-----
Direct support for allowing porn in *schools*... though at least here he
specifies "adolescents". Does he allow for blocking it - censoring it -
from younger children? Well, not based on his own claims:
-----
Don't be fooled by the excuse. Censorship laws are more
dangerous to a democratic society than any pornography could
ever be.
-----
So requiring censoring of porn to grade schools is more dangerous than the
porn itself? What?
-----
It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of
age 15 � it is normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex.
-----
Notice: he does not speak of the fringe case of an 18 yr old with a 16 yr
old... he speaks of a *15* year old with "anyone"... and tries to make it
sound normal. That is grotesque.
> Anything that doesn't fit into their somewhat twisted mentality and
> point of view sets them off on an angry tirade.
>
> Look at Chris Ahlstrom for example and his penchant for starting new
> threads when a negative to Linux thread appears.
Yet when I start a thread, Chris jumps up and down like this is completely
out of line for COLA.
> There is something wrong with a person like that who can't accept
> reality.
> It makes me wonder how they are able to function in everyday life?
> Do they go berserk when a traffic light turns red on them?
> When the cashier gives the wrong change?
> When the ATM is out of money?
>
> The whole thing just seems very bizarre to me.
Agreed.
> Most people here know I was never a fan of Vista, never bought it,
> had no intention of ever using it. My solution was simple, if
> Microsoft couldn't release a decent successor to Windows XP within a
> reasonable amount of time, I was moving my DAW to a Mac.
> Real simple.
> No frothing.
> No twitching.
> No defending Vista.
> Just a simple solution.
Makes sense. And if someone makes a solution that serves me better than my
current Mac, I have no problem moving. And you prefer something other than
a Mac... you find it serves you better. No problem with that, either.
> Linux COLA "advocates" can't seem to be able to do that.
> They will defend what can't be defended and never back down or admit
> faults no matter how foolish it makes them look to others.
Exactly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 2011-08-04, the following emerged from the brain of Chris:
>
> 8<
>
>> Why did you create a *new* thread to respond?
>
> Because he's a filthy troll.
>
>> I thought "TomB and his accusations" are the topic?
>
> What accusations, I wonder. It's the troll who accused me of
> supporting pedophilia.
Please quote this accusation.
Oh.
You made it up.
>> What "agenda"? What are you talking about?
>
> Next to being an obsessive and obtuse troll, he's also extremely
> paranoid.
See: just making things up he knows he cannot defend... to please the herd.
Great example, TomB. Thanks!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Richard Stallman:
-----
It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of
age 15 � it is normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex.
-----
ARN: <http://goo.gl/bQYjC>
David Ramli: So is child pornography not a good enough reason
to censor the Internet?
Richard Stallman: Certainly not, certainly not a good enough
reason. There are videos I�ve seen that shocked and disgusted
me, but I don�t want to censor them. I do not advocate
censorship just because I or you find them disgusting.
-----
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
-----
Yeah, pretty hard to defend.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7:33 AM:
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> Chris <chris...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Please dump this argument.
>>
>> You've been hooked.... and the trolls are dragging you in.
>>
>> Who the fuck cares what Stallman said? His coding is absolutely
>> BRILLIANT and that is ALL that matters in this newsgroup. If you don't
>> like it then take your argument and fuck off elsewhere.
>
> His ethics are to be admired, as well.
>
> If he makes his opinions public, it's proof positive that he is not
> ashamed of them - proof positive that he's not afraid of looking "bad"
> - proof positive that he isn't saying anything "bad".
The fact he makes his repulsive views made in public is proof to you that
those very views are not "bad".
Talk about twisting!
> Does anyone *really* think that he would go on the record as
> supporting something that is "clearly bad"?
He clearly is. As I have quoted and do so again, below.
> The man continues to be admired and continues to be bestowed with
> various honors. Clearly, the reasonable world considers his work to
> be laudable and his views to be reasonable.
So because he has done some good things the following quotes of his should
be ignored? No... that is repressible.
His quotes... all from stallman.org, except where noted:
-----
Don't be fooled by the excuse. Censorship laws are more
dangerous to a democratic society than any pornography could
ever be.
-----
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
-----
If people are seriously concerned not to let children have
sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that
has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You
have seen the statements certifying that "no animals were
harmed in making this film." There could be a similar
certification that "no minors had sex or were nude with
adults in making this film."
-----
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
very important for education. Blocking adolescents' access to
porn, or keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly.
-----
It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of
age 15 � it is normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex.
-----
-----
ARN: <http://goo.gl/bQYjC>
David Ramli: So is child pornography not a good enough reason
to censor the Internet?
Richard Stallman: Certainly not, certainly not a good enough
reason. There are videos I�ve seen that shocked and disgusted
me, but I don�t want to censor them. I do not advocate
censorship just because I or you find them disgusting.
-----
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
> On 2011-08-04, Chris <chris...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Please dump this argument.
>
> You've been hooked.... and the trolls are dragging you in.
>
> Who the fuck cares what Stallman said? His coding is absolutely
> BRILLIANT and that is ALL that matters in this newsgroup. If you don't
> like it then take your argument and fuck off elsewhere.
I've already killfiled the thread where this all started. It looks like I
have two or three more to killfile as Snit is opening up more and more
threads on the same subject. I guess his obsessiveness has branched out
and latched on to another subject.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.6 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
or Linux Mint 10
Snit
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:56:05 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2011-08-04, Chris <chris...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Please dump this argument.
>>
>> You've been hooked.... and the trolls are dragging you in.
>>
>> Who the fuck cares what Stallman said? His coding is absolutely
>> BRILLIANT and that is ALL that matters in this newsgroup. If you don't
>> like it then take your argument and fuck off elsewhere.
>
> I've already killfiled the thread where this all started. It looks like I
> have two or three more to killfile as Snit is opening up more and more
> threads on the same subject. I guess his obsessiveness has branched out
> and latched on to another subject.
See: I note something and then *react* to the absurd responses... and RonB
blames me.
Quite telling if his irrational bias.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
>Snit wrote:
>
>(snipped, unread.)
*thread plonk*
Snit
> It's probably a real good thing that degenerate never had any children,
> eh?
Do we know he did not? And what about other access - from his comments it
is very, very clear he would not censor any type of porn nor any depiction
of a sex crime from high schools - he considers most of that to be
"educational". Would he even censor it from grade schools? He does say any
censorship laws are more dangerous than the porn being censored - meaning he
would not want that material censored by law, but maybe he allows for that?
How many shades of repulsive is this guy?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Moe Green
useless asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:n4tl379jp6bf1rpvs...@4ax.com...
sheesh - what a useless fscking JACKASS you are.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> Chris <chris...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Please dump this argument.
>>
>>You've been hooked.... and the trolls are dragging you in.
>>
>>Who the fuck cares what Stallman said? His coding is absolutely
>>BRILLIANT and that is ALL that matters in this newsgroup. If you don't
>>like it then take your argument and fuck off elsewhere.
>
>
> If he makes his opinions public, it's proof positive that he is not
> ashamed of them - proof positive that he's not afraid of looking "bad"
> - proof positive that he isn't saying anything "bad".
>
> supporting something that is "clearly bad"?
>
> various honors. Clearly, the reasonable world considers his work to
> be laudable and his views to be reasonable.
>
I agree, but it is irrelevant with regards to linux advocacy.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Gary Stewart
So is all the crap you Linux idiots write about Bill Gates and his
foundations.
That doesn't stop you though
It's really hysterical watching you COLA Linux loons trying to
explain away Stallman's abhorrent statements.
How's it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?
Based upon all the dancing and rationalizing you Linux vermin are
doing, my guess is not too good.
--
8/4/2011 4:31:37 PM
Snit
8/4/11 1:33 PM:
> On 4 Aug 2011 20:27:10 GMT, Gregory Shearman wrote:
I have never seen any comment from Gates even close to being as repulsive as
those from Stallman.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/4/11 1:27 PM:
So are most of the discussions about the leadership of MS and Apple.
But I never hear you complain about that.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/4/11 10:13 AM:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:57:57 GMT, TomB wrote:
>
>> On 2011-08-04, the following emerged from the brain of Chris:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> Why did you create a *new* thread to respond?
>>
>> Because he's a filthy troll.
>
> Interesting you don't say anything about Chris Ahlstrom creating new
> threads all the time.
>
> Personally I'm glad you don't because it makes him look like an
> idiot, but I would think your side wouldn't like that.
>
TomB is in full herd mode right now.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/4/11 8:51 AM:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 10:52:07 -0400, Hyman Roth wrote:
>
>> child molester "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ugal37d6tf8v940pq...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> If he makes his opinions public, it's proof positive that he is not
>>> ashamed of them - proof positive that he's not afraid of looking "bad"
>>> - proof positive that he isn't saying anything "bad".
>>
>> he wants to have sex with little kids. only a complete jackass asshole like
>> you would support a screwball like that.
>>
>> what a asshole you are. supporting a nearly 60 year old who wants to fsck
>> little kids.
>>
>> sheeesh - what the fsck is wrong with you asshole?
>
> This time it's the whole COLA Linux "advocate" cabal.
>
> Tell me I am hallucinating because even *I* can't believe these
> Linux "advocates" would sink that low.
I agree... I did not expect this level of defense for Stallman's repulsive
comments.
> And they get upset when I call them Linux vermin?
> Vermin is too good a word from what I am seeing.
I generally think the name calling is absurd - but in this case I see
exactly where you are coming from.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/4/11 6:56 AM:
> On 2011-08-04, Chris <chris...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Please dump this argument.
>
> You've been hooked.... and the trolls are dragging you in.
>
> Who the fuck cares what Stallman said?
Homer parrots him almost daily.
> His coding is absolutely
> BRILLIANT and that is ALL that matters in this newsgroup. If you don't
> like it then take your argument and fuck off elsewhere.
So the same can be said of the leadership of Apple and MS, right?
Funny how I never saw you make that claim.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris
> Chris stated in post j1egub$mf$1...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
> 8/4/11 9:21 AM:
>
>> Am Thu, 04 Aug 2011 04:27:40 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>
>>> Chris stated in post j1di5n$m6s$1...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
>>> 8/4/11 12:36 AM:
>>>
>>>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:55:12 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>>>
>>>>> Chris stated in post j1cjch$c48$2...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de
>>>>> on 8/3/11 3:50 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:15 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with Stallman and
>>>>>>> say he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new
>>>>>> thread for that and why you don't provide a full quote with
>>>>>> context?
>>>>>
>>>>> It was meant mostly for TomB, but if you want a link to the
>>>>> referenced post I can find it for you.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't really answer the question...
>>>
>>> TomB made serious and false accusations. This thread is responds to
>>> them.
>>
>> The question again:
>> Why did you create a *new* thread to respond?
>
> Why not? People create threads all the time. This thread is a somewhat
> different topic than the other.
Maybe I'm not understanding that right, but threads go off topic all the
time too. And this should be closely related to the posts you got the
quotes below from, so why artificially separate them?
>> Why did you recount the whole thing in your own words instead of just
>> quoting?
>
> I offered to quote and you showed no interest. Here, the quote from
> TomB:
>
> <201108030...@usenet.drumscum.be>
> -----
> Okay Snit, you have crossed a line here. Suggest *one* more time
> that I'm am somehow support child pornography and pedophilia, and I
> will contact an attorney myself. This is slander.
> ...
> So again: suggest *ONE* more time that I am supporting child
> pornography and pedophilia, and I will take this beyond usenet.
> -----
>
> <201108031...@usenet.drumscum.be>
> -----
> Snit really went to far this this time. Look at the bit you quoted
> above, where he suggests that I'm *supporting* child pornography and
> pedophilia. Pure slanter.
> -----
Thanks. Now I finally know what accusations you are talking about.
> Of course, TomB never actually supported his accusations against me...
> he *claimed* I was accusing him of more than just defending Stallman's
> perverse words but of *agreeing* with them.
I don't think a suggestion needs to explicitely stated.
> Not even TomB went so far
> as to say he agrees with Stallman, though he has now suggested he would
> not have a problem, in principle, if his 13 year old daughter was dating
> someone Stallman's age.
>
> Which I find repulsive.
Actually he didn't answer yet and what he did elsewhere was suggesting it
without saying exactly this.
Which is the same "suggesting" he is accusing you of I believe.
I also believe that this is what you wanted to do all along: You repeat
so often your "Stallman defends child pornography and you defend
Stallman"-mantra that my and TomB's few answers are simply not seen by
the casual reader.
"
Message-ID: <CA5D8A19.A1246%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
TomB stated in post 201108021...@usenet.drumscum.be on 8/2/11 2:50
AM:
> On 2011-08-01, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> 8<
>> Seriously, how can you defend that?
> I'm not defending anything. I'm just noting that Stallman's words on
> these matters are very much open to interpretation. You are just
> jumping to conclusions, going as far as implying that the man might be
> a pedophile or in posession of child pornography. That is very immoral
> of you.
Stallman defended pedophilia and child porn claiming people are against
them
based on prejudice and narrowmindedness. There is no defense for that.
"
>> I mean, it's obvious that there is a high risk of losing accuracy of
>> the original thread when narrating it in your own words...
>
>>>>>>> But then TomB and others *defend* Stallman and say that maybe his
>>>>>>> ideas are no so bad... maybe there is some twist that can be
>>>>>>> applied that would make his ideas be less repulsive. There is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From your latest response I assume I am part of "others". If you
>>>>>> suggest something like this, please provide a list with people who
>>>>>> do what you say they did and provide some quotes with some context.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not been keeping a list.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not.
>>>>
>>>>>> The "twist that can be applied" is the direct words of Richard
>>>>>> Stallman: "as long as no one is coerced"
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are his words:
>>>>>
>>>>> as long as no one is coerced.
>>>>
>>>> The phrase you always omit. What do you think he wants to say with
>>>> that?
>>>
>>> I do not "always omit" it.
>>
>> Yes you do. In your copypaste message
>
> I repeatedly include it and much more in my quotes of Stallman...
Ok, that was wrong. You don't do it always, but you do it most often in
your replies.
> and you snip his words. Here they are, again
We have already read them. My question where I changed the meaning of any
of those quotes still stands.
> (with some added from previous lists):
That's what I'm talking about. :)
[...]
> Read those.
I have. No need to repeat them. My question was where I got it wrong.
>> "Stallman defended pedophilia and child porn claiming people are
>> against them based on prejudice and narrowmindedness."
>>
>> I have not counted how often you simply repeated that message instead
>> of actually elaborating on what was said. But it was often enaugh.
>
> I am not elaborating on that... I am noting I find it repulsive. Do you
> not?
Unfortunately "it" is ambiguous here.
If "it" means
"Stallman defended pedophilia and child porn claiming people are
against them based on prejudice and narrowmindedness."
then of course. I think I have said that often enaugh.
I also said somewhere else that even if my interpretation is correct it
doesn't necessarily mean I'd agree with it.
Since you probably won't let it go:
The problem is that I don't really know what criteria must be met for an
adolescent to be able to make an informed decision about
- whether to have sex
- when to have sex
- with whom to have sex
I'd rather leave that decision to the respective experts in that field.
And I think Stallman should too. Yet I don't think he wanted to say what
you apparently want him to have said.
>>> I have talked about why the concept of
>>> coercion is absurd when it comes to trying to excuse abusing children.
>>
>> You have said "It is wrong". That's hardly "talked about why [...]"
>> anything.
>
> Normal people do not need to convinced that it is wrong for adults to
> coerce children into having sex with them.
What qualifies as children? What age are the adults you speak of?
You don't say that. Stallman doesn't either. He just hints to it in
several different quotes.
>>> Again: why try to twist his words into something you think is not as
>>> offensive? And why snip his words? Here is what Stallman says:
>>
>> I believe I didn't snip context that would change the meaning of
>> anything I commented on.
>>
>> If I am wrong, then please show me exactly where.
>
> You keep trying to bend his words to be less offensive than they are -
> saying, for example, that when he talks about child porn and pedophilia
> in general terms he must mean the fringe cases where there is some gray
> (say an 18 year old dating a 16 year old). To do so, of course, is to
> twist his words to be something less offensive.
I will stop asking you after this question:
How am I supposedly "twisting" the words? I gave you the concrete
sentences from which I get what I think. Tell me where I am wrong. Or
don't. But stop implying those sort of things.
>>> ...
>>
>>> -----
>>> The harsh attitude towards men who are attracted to children,
>>> manifested in the systematic attempts to arrest people for merely
>>> looking at pictures, could be perversely making it more likely
>>> they will try to have sex with children.
>>> -----
>>
>> Funny how you change your list without indicating that this wasn't on
>> the list two posts back.
>
> I keep adding to the list as I find more.
Nothing wrong with that. Just let the reader know what was there when I
responded. Actually you were right. Just quoting the whole thing would
have been better instead of only quoting the relevant parts for that
reason.
>>> And there is no defense for him. None.
>>
>> If he said what according to you he said, no. But as I read it he
>> didn't. Simply as that.
>
> What? Except where otherwise noted, *all* of the quotes come from
> stallman.org. And only one notes otherwise.
You don't simply quote it. You then go on telling us what you just
quoted, but omitting some details and hinting to conclusions based on
that.
> So now you admit that if he said what is quoted from his own site you
> would agree that there is no defense for his comments - you just do not
> believe the quotes from his own site are really his comments.
>
> Do you not see how absurd your defense of him has become. Do you think
> his site was hacked? Do you think he was quoting others without noting
> it? Just what is your defense of him here?
I said what I think of the quotes with the exact sentence from which I
get my understanding.
Actually it's hard to speak about it when you haven't even clearly stated
what you think there is no defense for.
Stallman has given the example of a sexually mature 16 year old. You have
not provided anything and I have to base my understanding of you on the
same type of interpretation I use for Stallman's words.
You may want to give a specific example of what you think Stallman
"defends" which would be unacceptable for you. That will make it much
easier here.
> ...
>>> Look at what he writes.
>>
>> I did. He wrote about an example with sexually mature 16 year old
>> Americans. That's one of your "fringe cases" he supposedly doesn't mean
>> in general. Yet it is his primary example.
>> I asked you whether you have an argument why my conclusion is wrong.
>> Seems you haven't.
>
> You assume fringe cases when he talks in general terms. And then you
> say that if he really did say what he has said you, too, would not be
> able to defend it... but you insinuate someone else said his words:
>
> Chris:
> -----
> > And there is no defense for him. None.
> If he said what according to you he said, no.
> -----
>
> Remember, all I have done is quote him.
And then you went on omitting part of it, you said "Coercion is
irrelevant" and from then on I didn't see a proper argument but your
implication that he "defends" child pornography in general which with I
disagree.
Sorry, but after I have said similar things so many times now I think you
should finally get it.
> ...
>>> You are making excuses for him. Read his own words.
>>
>> I did. And I can't find what you say. I am honestly understanding it
>> the way I describe it to you. Why is it so hard to speak about that?
>
> If you cannot find it, go to stallman.org and do a search. Easy to
> find.
I have told you my understanding and I have told you why I came to it.
You seem to disagree. I can't find your reasons.
>>>>> This shows the dishonesty of the claim that this is about
>>>>> protecting children. If that were their real goal, they would
>>>>> say,
>>>>> "We were pleased to discover in some cases that no children had
>>>>> been abused."
>>>>
>>>> "some cases", meaning rather few in many. What do you think it means
>>>> other than a little "subset" that you argued somewhere he didn't
>>>> mean? What do you think he wants to say with that?
>>>>
>>>>> He should be investigated.
>>>>
>>>> I snipped the quotes that had nothing to do with the topic.
>>>
>>> His comments are the topic.
>>
>> I thought "TomB and his accusations" are the topic?
>
> And his accusations deal with Stallman's obscene claims.
So to what of the above two "accusations" does this quote relate?
"
This censorship cannot be justified by protecting corpses
from suffering. Whatever you do to a corpse, it can't suffer,
not even emotionally.
"
>>>> But as you can see I have a good basis to think that he is talking
>>>> about sexually mature 16 year olds from what _you_ quoted.
>>>
>>> In some cases he focuses on that age. In some his cutoff is 15. On
>>> others he has no cutoff at all.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> And you have no problem with this.
I already said elsewhere that I do.
But I can make it clearer:
In my opinion to write something that unspecified to such a sensible
topic it is quite stupid.
Why am I wasting so much time with this?
>>>> If you can provide evidence that this is not the case then I'm with
>>>> you. I already said that elsewhere. But if not, then not.
>>>>
>>> Read his words. Really: I am *not* going to interpret them for you.
>>>
>> Of course you aren't.
>>
>> Since you seem to be unable to make a coherent argument I'll leave it
>> there.
>
> I am merely noting that Stallman, based in his own words, should be
> investigated. This is not something a reasonable person would debate
> against.
But before calling law enforcement you may want to make sure he really
means what you think he means.
I am not getting tired of telling you again and again that if Stallman
gives a comprehensive statement about his views regarding child
pornography and it turns out I am wrong (which I said could easily be the
case) I am with you and actually with Gary.
>>> I keep being accused of interpreting them in some dishonest way - but
>>> you are the one one making excuses and trying to come up with creative
>>> interpretations of his words. And snipping his words.
>>
>> As I said I believe I didn't snip context that would change the meaning
>> of anything. The original is two posts above, if you have an objection,
>> then you're free to tell me.
>>
>> Also I ask you to explain where I got "creative". I asked you several
>> question why you think that my comments are not what he meant and yet
>> the only reply you come up with is "read his words".
>
> I have repeatedly told you how you are twisting his words: assuming
> fringe cases when he speaks of none... making excuses for him. Read his
> words and stop making assumptions that he is speaking of something other
> than what he says he is speaking of. As you have noted, if you do that
> then you will not be able to defend him.
So if I read "as long as no one is coerced" and think that it isn't clear
what it means in this context, it is wrong for me to look at his other
texts that speak about the same topic?
> ...
>>> A normal person, reading his words, would be appalled.
>>
>> The opinion of "normal people" is pretty much irrelevant.
>
> Oh please. We are not talking gray areas here. I have shown his
> comments now to a number of people. The *only* ones not to be appalled
> are Linux "advocates"... who would also be appalled if these comments
> were from someone outside of their own community. No doubt.
>>> Heck, I have shared his comments with quite a few people now - the
>>> *only*
>>> ones who are not appalled are
>>
>> Why do I find it hard to believe that you did so in an unbiased way?
>
> Because you do not want to believe someone in the free software
> community is bad.
I have thought about that possibility, but I don't think so, no.
>>> those with an agenda to defend people important to the desktop Linux
>>> world.
>>
>> What "agenda"? What are you talking about?
>> I just have a slight bias but I am well aware of that as I said and I
>> am ready to be proven wrong.
>>
>> Did you by the way write to him and ask for a comprehensive statement
>> regarding his views?
>
> No. Have you you? Are you suggesting I *investigate*?
No, I have not. Didn't you want to?
>>> You generally are more rational than you are being here - but step
>>> back and think how you would feel if Joe Schmoe was writing those
>>> words online and it was not Stallman.
>>>
>>> The idea he should be investigated based on his own words is really
>>> not something worth debating. Read his words.
>>
>> Actually I find it not worth debating that his words are open to
>> interpretation. You could be right, I could be right, we could both be
>> wrong. I just say it's wrong for you to be so sure about your
>> interpretation.
>
> Remember: I am offering no interpretation... I am quoting and then
> noting he should be investigated.
And I am noting that it isn't as clear as you imply what he means and you
should rather ask for a comprehensive statement about his views.
Should be in his interest too.
> ...
>>>>> LOL! Now that is funny. Read any one of my posts where I respond
>>>>> with "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" and you will see me responding to
>>>>> an example.
>>>>
>>>> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person
>>>> then it's a "herd". Interesting.
>>>
>>> Nope. Not at all. Where would you get that idea?
>>
>> From reading your posts.
>
> Cop out answer. Do you have examples? If I have used the term "herd"
> inappropriately or noted someone stampeding when they were actually
> showing any sign of believing their insults, accusations and attacks
> then please quote it. To the contrary, those that stampede with the
> herd make such accusations and insults and *always* run when asked to
> actually back them. Always.
>
> If you can find a counter example I will be happy to rescind my claim
> for that case... but I suspect you will not.
>
> Oh, and note that this has *nothing* to do with your claim about someone
> "reasonably agreeing" with another person. Nothing at all.
This "claim" is simply my impression. Most often when you do that
"Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" thing I ask myself what's wrong with this guy
and why can't he simply reply as any other normal person.
To me it seems to be a convenient way for your brain to bail out of the
discussion while telling yourself that the others are to blame.
Disclaimer: Just my impression, not backed up by anything.
By the way:
It may be interesting to know for you that sometimes I go into such a
discussion without a fixed opinion. I have read what you quoted from
Stallman, I have read what you had to say to it and I didn't feel you
understood what I understood. You can try to convince me or you can let
it be. You certainly haven't convinced any of the "other-understanders"
now. Some time ago you didn't convince me for example "linux, subset, OS"
understanding.
You blame it on your "herd" idea, I blame it on you simply being not
convincing.
Also just making Stallman post a comprehensive statement instead of his
short, very short ideas would have made the whole thing unneccessary.
And yes, I have noticed you have "answered" me in yet another thread. I
won't play that game anymore. Even with such a dangerous topic.
Chris
>>> -----
>>> Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
>>> materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
>>> educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also very
>>> important for education. Blocking adolescents' access to porn, or
>>> keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely to stunt their
>>> emotional growth and make them vulnerable to mistakes that can
>>> hurt them badly.
>>> -----
...
>> -----
>> Don't be fooled by the excuse. Censorship laws are more
>> dangerous to a democratic society than any pornography could
>> ever be.
>> -----
...
>> It's probably a real good thing that degenerate never had any children,
>> eh?
>
> Do we know he did not? And what about other access - from his comments
> it is very, very clear he would not censor any type of porn nor any
> depiction of a sex crime from high schools - he considers most of that
> to be "educational".
That is _not_ consistent with what you quoted. He says he wouldn't censor
it. That's right.
But that he considers "most" of "it" (depiction of sex crime, as your
phrasing suggests) educational is _not_ "very, very clear" from his
comments.
To use your reasoning: What normal people would think about "depiction of
sex crime" when you talk about "porn" to them?
I can show you where _you_ twist his words: You add "any type of" to
"porn" to make the reader easier accept your idea of it including
"depiction of sex crime" whereas the quote directly above you speaks of
only "porn".
> Would he even censor it from grade schools? He
> does say any censorship laws are more dangerous than the porn being
> censored
When you talk about Censorship laws being dangerous to a democratic
society do you talk about keeping away "depictions of sex crime" from
grade schools?
Snit
5:31 PM:
Which is what I said.
> But that he considers "most" of "it" (depiction of sex crime, as your
> phrasing suggests) educational is _not_ "very, very clear" from his
> comments.
Ok, that only applies to porn (which includes depictions of sex crimes) - he
calls that "educational". Which is grotesque.
> To use your reasoning: What normal people would think about "depiction of
> sex crime" when you talk about "porn" to them?
I was specifically thinking of pedophilia - but all sorts of things are
depicted in porn.
> I can show you where _you_ twist his words: You add "any type of" to
> "porn" to make the reader easier accept your idea of it including
> "depiction of sex crime" whereas the quote directly above you speaks of
> only "porn".
Stallman:
-----
Blocking adolescents' access to porn, or
keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely to stunt their
emotional growth and make them vulnerable to mistakes that can
hurt them badly.
-----
Grotesque, don't you agree? Or do you want teens to have access to porn in
*schools*. And call it *education*.
Just sickening.
>> Would he even censor it from grade schools? He
>> does say any censorship laws are more dangerous than the porn being
>> censored
>
> When you talk about Censorship laws being dangerous to a democratic
> society do you talk about keeping away "depictions of sex crime" from
> grade schools?
Such is generally *implied*: only someone as repulsive as Stallman would
suggest such filth be in schools.
>> - meaning he would not want that material censored by law, but
>> maybe he allows for that?
>>
>> How many shades of repulsive is this guy?
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
5:16 PM:
...
>>> The question again:
>>> Why did you create a *new* thread to respond?
>>
>> Why not? People create threads all the time. This thread is a somewhat
>> different topic than the other.
>
> Maybe I'm not understanding that right, but threads go off topic all the
> time too. And this should be closely related to the posts you got the
> quotes below from, so why artificially separate them?
Because I figured it would make folks who troll me flip out. :)
I mean, really, what the heck are you digging for?
>>> Why did you recount the whole thing in your own words instead of just
>>> quoting?
>>
>> I offered to quote and you showed no interest. Here, the quote from
>> TomB:
>>
>> <201108030...@usenet.drumscum.be>
>> -----
>> Okay Snit, you have crossed a line here. Suggest *one* more time
>> that I'm am somehow support child pornography and pedophilia, and I
>> will contact an attorney myself. This is slander.
>> ...
>> So again: suggest *ONE* more time that I am supporting child
>> pornography and pedophilia, and I will take this beyond usenet.
>> -----
>>
>> <201108031...@usenet.drumscum.be>
>> -----
>> Snit really went to far this this time. Look at the bit you quoted
>> above, where he suggests that I'm *supporting* child pornography and
>> pedophilia. Pure slanter.
>> -----
>
> Thanks. Now I finally know what accusations you are talking about.
No problem. As noted, all you had to do was ask. Unlike most of the
"advocates", I am happy to provide quotes to reference what I am talking
about.
TomB made false accusations against me - and note how he does not even try
to provide quotes to back up his claims. He is not as honorable as I am -
or at least is not behaving so in this case.
>> Of course, TomB never actually supported his accusations against me...
>> he *claimed* I was accusing him of more than just defending Stallman's
>> perverse words but of *agreeing* with them.
>
> I don't think a suggestion needs to explicitely stated.
So you think it is fair to accept what Stallman "suggests" even if he does
not state it. Interesting. I merely say he should be investigated, but if
you take "suggestions" from his comments he should be in jail. And maybe
castrated.
Note, I am *not* saying that should happen... just if you accept what his
comments "suggest"... not what they actually say.
>> Not even TomB went so far
>> as to say he agrees with Stallman, though he has now suggested he would
>> not have a problem, in principle, if his 13 year old daughter was dating
>> someone Stallman's age.
>>
>> Which I find repulsive.
>
> Actually he didn't answer yet and what he did elsewhere was suggesting it
> without saying exactly this.
Looking at his words you are correct: he says he would have less of a
problem with that than he would his daughter dating someone 17 who talks her
into sex.
-----
My oldest daughter is 13 now, and I'd rather like her having
sex now with a 25 year old who respects her, and has her full
consent, that at 15 with a 17 year old who talks her into it.
-----
So I stand corrected.
> Which is the same "suggesting" he is accusing you of I believe.
>
> I also believe that this is what you wanted to do all along: You repeat
> so often your "Stallman defends child pornography and you defend
> Stallman"-mantra that my and TomB's few answers are simply not seen by
> the casual reader.
I made a claim about TomB that was not correct. You called me on it and I
admitted to it, and gave context and a correction.
TomB makes up stories about me and you claim he is merely looking at what I
am "suggesting". I just wish he would be as honorable as I am.
...
>>> "Stallman defended pedophilia and child porn claiming people are
>>> against them based on prejudice and narrowmindedness."
>>>
>>> I have not counted how often you simply repeated that message instead
>>> of actually elaborating on what was said. But it was often enaugh.
>>
>> I am not elaborating on that... I am noting I find it repulsive. Do you
>> not?
>
> Unfortunately "it" is ambiguous here.
> If "it" means
Nice dodge. A *normal* person would be able to answer the question.
Easily. Normal people think it is repulsive to attribute a repulsion to
child porn and pedophilia to prejudice and narrowmindedness.
And, I suggest (note, I am not saying you have said this), if this were not
Stallman you would be acting in a "normal" way. You would not be defending
Stallman and doing all you can to twist words to find some "out" for him.
And this is true of the other "advocates". From many I am not surprised by
this - by you and TomB I am. I thought you were stronger than that and on
an issue this extreme could stand up against the COLA "herd. I am saddened
to see how wrong I am.
> "Stallman defended pedophilia and child porn claiming people are
> against them based on prejudice and narrowmindedness."
>
> then of course. I think I have said that often enaugh.
>
> I also said somewhere else that even if my interpretation is correct it
> doesn't necessarily mean I'd agree with it.
>
> Since you probably won't let it go:
You are responding to my posts as much as I am to yours... hence you are
"not letting it go" either.
> The problem is that I don't really know what criteria must be met for an
> adolescent to be able to make an informed decision about
>
> - whether to have sex
> - when to have sex
> - with whom to have sex
>
> I'd rather leave that decision to the respective experts in that field.
> And I think Stallman should too. Yet I don't think he wanted to say what
> you apparently want him to have said.
How dare you. Really. I do not *want* him to have said what he said. Not
at all. I am repulsed by it and find it offensive you would say I want him
or others to have said those things.
>>>> I have talked about why the concept of
>>>> coercion is absurd when it comes to trying to excuse abusing children.
>>>
>>> You have said "It is wrong". That's hardly "talked about why [...]"
>>> anything.
>>
>> Normal people do not need to convinced that it is wrong for adults to
>> coerce children into having sex with them.
>
> What qualifies as children? What age are the adults you speak of?
> You don't say that. Stallman doesn't either. He just hints to it in
> several different quotes.
I am not going to play such games. The fact is, normal people do not need
to be convinced that it is wrong for adults to coerce children into having
sex with them. It is simply *absurd* - and repulsive - that you are
claiming to need such convincing!
>>>> Again: why try to twist his words into something you think is not as
>>>> offensive? And why snip his words? Here is what Stallman says:
>>>
>>> I believe I didn't snip context that would change the meaning of
>>> anything I commented on.
>>>
>>> If I am wrong, then please show me exactly where.
>>
>> You keep trying to bend his words to be less offensive than they are -
>> saying, for example, that when he talks about child porn and pedophilia
>> in general terms he must mean the fringe cases where there is some gray
>> (say an 18 year old dating a 16 year old). To do so, of course, is to
>> twist his words to be something less offensive.
>
> I will stop asking you after this question:
>
> How am I supposedly "twisting" the words?
Read my above comments. For crying out loud - the conversation will go
nowhere with the current pattern:
* You excuse Stallman's grotesque claims, often by trying to find fringe
cases where his words might apply to a non-grotesque situation.
* I point this out.
* You ask where you have done this.
Well, you have done this repeatedly *where I have been pointing it out*...
and more. Look at your above comment "What qualifies as children? What age
are the adults you speak of?" Clearly you are seeking some fringe case
where his comments would be seen as reasonable and not as the grotesque
comments they are. And your talk of "criteria" above that. And more. You
are repeatedly working to twist his words to fit your desire for them not to
be what they are.
Nope.
>> So now you admit that if he said what is quoted from his own site you
>> would agree that there is no defense for his comments - you just do not
>> believe the quotes from his own site are really his comments.
>>
>> Do you not see how absurd your defense of him has become. Do you think
>> his site was hacked? Do you think he was quoting others without noting
>> it? Just what is your defense of him here?
>
> I said what I think of the quotes with the exact sentence from which I
> get my understanding.
You did not answer my question. I quote him *exactly* and from his own
site, and you say those are not his words.
> Actually it's hard to speak about it when you haven't even clearly stated
> what you think there is no defense for.
I refuse to interpret his words... and your repeated accusations that I have
done so do not inspire me to do so!
> Stallman has given the example of a sexually mature 16 year old. You have
> not provided anything and I have to base my understanding of you on the
> same type of interpretation I use for Stallman's words.
>
> You may want to give a specific example of what you think Stallman
> "defends" which would be unacceptable for you. That will make it much
> easier here.
Here is what he says, *AGAIN* (this is what I think he *says*... not
"defends":
that the children had been abused." This shows the dishonesty
of the claim that this is about protecting children. If that
were their real goal, they would say, "We were pleased to
discover in some cases that no children had been abused."
If people are seriously concerned not to let children have
sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that
has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You
have seen the statements certifying that "no animals were
harmed in making this film." There could be a similar
certification that "no minors had sex or were nude with
adults in making this film."
-----
The concept of "sexual interference with a human corpse" is
curious. All a corpse can do is decay, so the only possible
kind of interference is to prevent its decay. Thus, "sexual
interference" ought to mean playing with the corpse's
genitals while injecting embalming fluid, or while putting it
into a refrigerator. However, I doubt that the censors
interpret this term rationally. They will have cooked up an
excuse for some twisted interpretation of the term.
This censorship cannot be justified by protecting corpses
from suffering. Whatever you do to a corpse, it can't suffer,
not even emotionally.
-----
The first target of this censorship is sites and newsgroups
that supposedly contain "child pornography". This term is
dishonest, since the law defines "child" as "anyone under
18". For instance, Americans of age 16 are hardly children.
They are sexually mature, almost half of them have had sex,
and any normal adult will find them attractive. But our
government calls them "children", with the implication that
being attracted to them makes you a pervert.
-----
The harsh attitude towards men who are attracted to children,
manifested in the systematic attempts to arrest people for
merely looking at pictures, could be perversely making it
more likely they will try to have sex with children.
-----
...
<snip reason="massive repetition" />
>> I am merely noting that Stallman, based in his own words, should be
>> investigated. This is not something a reasonable person would debate
>> against.
>
> But before calling law enforcement you may want to make sure he really
> means what you think he means.
Who said I was calling law enforcement? And why would his comments mean
something other than what he says? Do you think he cannot communicate his
ideas? You are being silly.
> I am not getting tired of telling you again and again that if Stallman
> gives a comprehensive statement about his views regarding child
> pornography and it turns out I am wrong (which I said could easily be the
> case) I am with you and actually with Gary.
In other words: based on his comments from his own site, no matter how
repulsive they are, you will defend him. But if you email him and he admits
to even more than you might agree he is wrong.
Gee, thanks: I shall sleep better tonight.
...
>>> Why do I find it hard to believe that you did so in an unbiased way?
>>
>> Because you do not want to believe someone in the free software
>> community is bad.
>
> I have thought about that possibility, but I don't think so, no.
We cannot test it, but I find it unthinkable you would let this pass if it
were, say, Ballmer having been found saying these things. And the
"advocates" as a whole would be all over it. No doubt.
>>>> those with an agenda to defend people important to the desktop Linux
>>>> world.
>>>
>>> What "agenda"? What are you talking about?
>>> I just have a slight bias but I am well aware of that as I said and I
>>> am ready to be proven wrong.
>>>
>>> Did you by the way write to him and ask for a comprehensive statement
>>> regarding his views?
>>
>> No. Have you you? Are you suggesting I *investigate*?
>
> No, I have not. Didn't you want to?
No. I have said the authorities should. But you want me to start an
investigation by emailing him. Why?
...
>>>>>> LOL! Now that is funny. Read any one of my posts where I respond
>>>>>> with "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" and you will see me responding to
>>>>>> an example.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you say when somebody is reasonably agreeing with another person
>>>>> then it's a "herd". Interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Not at all. Where would you get that idea?
>>>
>>> From reading your posts.
>>
>> Cop out answer. Do you have examples? If I have used the term "herd"
>> inappropriately or noted someone stampeding when they were actually
>> showing any sign of believing their insults, accusations and attacks
>> then please quote it. To the contrary, those that stampede with the
>> herd make such accusations and insults and *always* run when asked to
>> actually back them. Always.
>>
>> If you can find a counter example I will be happy to rescind my claim
>> for that case... but I suspect you will not.
>>
>> Oh, and note that this has *nothing* to do with your claim about someone
>> "reasonably agreeing" with another person. Nothing at all.
>
> This "claim" is simply my impression. Most often when you do that
> "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" thing I ask myself what's wrong with this guy
> and why can't he simply reply as any other normal person.
I often ask why they cannot reply as a normal person, too! The answer, of
course, is they are more concerned about pleasing the other "advocates" and
protecting their position than they are in being honest. This is why they
*never* try to back their accusations. Look at how many times RonB lies
about me being anti-choice... look at how Peter K. lies about my views and
even about my family... look at how often Chris A. and chrisv celebrate
this... and sometimes, when he has been chastised by the "herd", TomB joins
in on this. In this case there was not a public chastising that I saw, but
in past cases the pattern has been clear - he acts in a relatively
reasonable way, he is chastised and then he starts calling me names.
> To me it seems to be a convenient way for your brain to bail out of the
> discussion while telling yourself that the others are to blame.
There is no *discussion*. That is the point. It is not as though RonB says
I am anti-choice so I ask him where I have ever said this and he gives a
reasoned response... or as if Peter K. calls me a liar and I ask where and
he quotes a comment of mine he claims is a lie... or as if HPT insists I
forged some video and then, when asked, actually tries to support this
claim.
No. These people make these claims over and over and over - but offer no
reason to think they actually believe what they say. And they say it as a
group, slapping each other on their backs for such lovely trolling. Over
and over. They lie - openly lie - and back each other.
This is the "herd" behavior. It has *nothing* to do with me bailing out of
a conversation nor anything to do with some form of *reasonable* agreement
from them. They are not *agreeing* to anything other than to call people
names and make accusations they *know* they cannot support.
> Disclaimer: Just my impression, not backed up by anything.
Right... fair enough. Now look at some of the examples I give above. Ask
the people I mention to back their claims and insults. RonB will fold. HPT
will fold. Peter K. will fold. TomB will fold. Chris A. will fold.
chrisv will fold.
This is 100% predictable. These people do not believe their insults and
accusations - they make them to support their herd. But test this... *ask*
them. I have many times. They run. Always.
> By the way:
> It may be interesting to know for you that sometimes I go into such a
> discussion without a fixed opinion. I have read what you quoted from
> Stallman, I have read what you had to say to it and I didn't feel you
> understood what I understood. You can try to convince me or you can let
> it be.
I have not tried to convince you... I have just noted how you try to find
fringe cases *not* implied by his comments to put the concepts he speaks
about into... and in this way you defend him.
> You certainly haven't convinced any of the "other-understanders"
> now. Some time ago you didn't convince me for example "linux, subset, OS"
> understanding.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying it is my failing when you
are not convinced?
> You blame it on your "herd" idea, I blame it on you simply being not
> convincing.
Again: look at my examples, above. Then if you want *more* evidence, ask
those I name to speak of some of the intrinsic weaknesses of desktop Linux -
things that keep users away.
They will be vague... and then change the topic to external things such as
developers and MS. And inertia. They will act as a herd to defend the
status que of desktop Linux. No need to take my word - ask them yourself.
But first ask them to defend their accusations (noted above) about me.
Heck, if you need I can pull up the quoted accusations.
> Also just making Stallman post a comprehensive statement instead of his
> short, very short ideas would have made the whole thing unneccessary.
I cannot make Stallman do anything, nor do I have any reason to believe he
would he honest about such things if I were to email him. In fact, I would
be shocked if he was honest... for *obvious* reasons.
> And yes, I have noticed you have "answered" me in yet another thread. I
> won't play that game anymore. Even with such a dangerous topic.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
5:16 PM:
> And yes, I have noticed you have "answered" me in yet another thread. I
> won't play that game anymore. Even with such a dangerous topic.
I have no idea what you are talking about with this accusation. Can you be
more specific? What post of mine?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> Please dump this argument. You've been hooked.... and the trolls are
>> dragging you in.
>
> manages to eclipse his normal level of obsessive behaviour. I think,
> perhaps, he protests too much...
I agree with Gregory, its just best to just dump this argument, we don't
need to feed Snit or the rest of the obsessed Wintrolls
--
HPT
TomB
> Am Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:24:51 -0700 schrieb Snit:
8<
> I also believe that this is what you wanted to do all along: You
> repeat so often your "Stallman defends child pornography and you
> defend Stallman"-mantra that my and TomB's few answers are simply
> not seen by the casual reader.
Of course. He just floods the thread with his inane and obtuse drivel.
He's generating so much noise that reasonable people are simply not
heard anymore. But he's a troll, and that's what trolls do.
> Sorry, but after I have said similar things so many times now I
> think you should finally get it.
No, he will never 'get it'. That would mean he can no longer troll
you.
> This "claim" is simply my impression. Most often when you do that
> "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" thing I ask myself what's wrong with
> this guy and why can't he simply reply as any other normal person.
Or not answer at all. But he does this because he's a troll.
You know, he thinks its odd that he's almost universally disliked by
the GNU/Linux advocates in COLA, but what the fsck does he expect?
What he's doing here is the equivalent of walking into a Jazz club,
walk up to the mic and say: "Jazz is not liked by many people. It is
not popular, and therefor its quality is sub-standard. Rock and pop
are the way to go, people!" The club owner will kick him out, and all
the people in the club will boo him. Those people are there to enjoy
Jazz music, and don't want to be told that it sucks, just like *we*
are in this usenet group to talk about the advantages of GNU/Linux,
and don't want to be told that it sucks.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
~ Albert Einstein
TomB
8<
> To use your reasoning: What normal people would think about "depiction of
> sex crime" when you talk about "porn" to them?
None. Only lying, trolling idiots.
--
Abort, Retry, Fail?
Chris
<snip senseless discussion>
> I have not tried to convince you... I have just noted how you try to
> find fringe cases *not* implied by his comments to put the concepts he
> speaks about into... and in this way you defend him.
I have told you why I think so.
He uses phrases like "as long as no one is coerced", he uses an example
of a sexually mature 16 year old and he constrained the child pornography
(he also complains about this term because "the law defines "child" as
"anyone under 18".") where no children were abused to "some cases".
Since you are keeping your interpretation and the reason for your
disagreement a secret I don't see why I should further participate here.
So I close with my statement:
Even if my interpretation is correct it doesn't mean I agree with what he
says, but it is a position worth discussing - and when discussed I'd like
an actual expert in the biology and psychology of children and
adolescents to evaluate the respective arguments.
You have once noted to TomB how inconsistent his position allegedly is
when he doesn't want to agree with Stallman because according to you he
"knows it is wrong", yet he according to you he "defends" Stallman.
You have said numerous times I too "defend" Stallman.
What I did was: I read his quotes, I got an impression about what he
means, I read your comments and I noticed you for example left a part out
that changed the meaning.
He says, child pornography should be legal as long as no one is coerced.
Which means there are constraints to what he means. Though they aren't
clear.
You say he defends child pornography. Which means child pornography in
general.
So I look at other comments and see his example of a sexually mature 16
year old. Then I see another comment where he complains that child
pornography So I think it is reasonable to assume he is talking about
that.
You seem to disagree yet I cannot see why.
That's all.
>> Also just making Stallman post a comprehensive statement instead of his
>> short, very short ideas would have made the whole thing unneccessary.
>
> I cannot make Stallman do anything, nor do I have any reason to believe
> he would he honest about such things if I were to email him. In fact, I
> would be shocked if he was honest... for *obvious* reasons.
What is your opinion what he would write if he was honest?
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2011-08-05, the following emerged from the brain of Chris:
>
>> <snip>
>
> Of course. He just floods the thread with his inane and obtuse drivel.
> He's generating so much noise that reasonable people are simply not
> heard anymore. But he's a troll, and that's what trolls do.
Exactly.
>> <snip>
>
> No, he will never 'get it'. That would mean he can no longer troll
> you.
Exactly.
>> This "claim" is simply my impression. Most often when you do that
>> "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" thing I ask myself what's wrong with
>> this guy and why can't he simply reply as any other normal person.
>
> Or not answer at all. But he does this because he's a troll.
Exactly.
--
The only problem with seeing too much is that it makes you insane.
-- Phaedrus
White Spirit
> I agree with Gregory, its just best to just dump this argument, we don't
> need to feed Snit or the rest of the obsessed Wintrolls
Fair enough. I'll pop him back in my killfile.
Snit
1:57 AM:
> Am Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:44:45 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
> <snip senseless discussion>
>
>> I have not tried to convince you... I have just noted how you try to
>> find fringe cases *not* implied by his comments to put the concepts he
>> speaks about into... and in this way you defend him.
>
> I have told you why I think so.
> He uses phrases like "as long as no one is coerced", he uses an example
> of a sexually mature 16 year old and he constrained the child pornography
> (he also complains about this term because "the law defines "child" as
> "anyone under 18".") where no children were abused to "some cases".
As noted: you are looking for fringe cases. There is nothing about the term
"coerced" that implied sexual maturity. Nothing. Heck, I had to coerce my
6 year old to let me brush her hair this morning.
You repeatedly just make things up about his comments - and then insist I am
wrong not to... wrong to base my views on his actual words.
> Since you are keeping your interpretation and the reason for your
> disagreement a secret I don't see why I should further participate here.
I am merely reading his words... I am not going to engage in the type of
creative interpretations you are. I am not going to bizarrely assume fringe
cases when no such assumption is warranted. You do so to excuse and defend
his repulsive comments.
> So I close with my statement:
> Even if my interpretation is correct it doesn't mean I agree with what he
> says, but it is a position worth discussing - and when discussed I'd like
> an actual expert in the biology and psychology of children and
> adolescents to evaluate the respective arguments.
What? You need experts to know his comments are repulsive? I do not.
> You have once noted to TomB how inconsistent his position allegedly is
> when he doesn't want to agree with Stallman because according to you he
> "knows it is wrong", yet he according to you he "defends" Stallman.
Yes. He does - because it is Stallman.
> You have said numerous times I too "defend" Stallman.
As you repeatedly are. Yes. And I find it abhorrent for you to twist his
words to try to find some defense for him.
> What I did was: I read his quotes, I got an impression about what he
> means, I read your comments and I noticed you for example left a part out
> that changed the meaning.
I did no such thing. Again, these are his words - no changing from me at
all:
> He says, child pornography should be legal as long as no one is coerced.
And you bizarrely assume fringe cases - even though this is neither stated
nor implied by his comments.
> Which means there are constraints to what he means. Though they aren't
> clear.
> You say he defends child pornography. Which means child pornography in
> general.
> So I look at other comments and see his example of a sexually mature 16
> year old.
And sometimes 15. And where he says things like how he think pornography is
*educational* material and should be allowed in high schools... utterly
insane and insight into his thinking.
> Then I see another comment where he complains that child
> pornography So I think it is reasonable to assume he is talking about
> that.
>
> You seem to disagree yet I cannot see why.
>
> That's all.
I am reading his words and not making up stories to excuse him.
>>> Also just making Stallman post a comprehensive statement instead of his
>>> short, very short ideas would have made the whole thing unneccessary.
>>
>> I cannot make Stallman do anything, nor do I have any reason to believe
>> he would he honest about such things if I were to email him. In fact, I
>> would be shocked if he was honest... for *obvious* reasons.
>
> What is your opinion what he would write if he was honest?
He would admit to the things he writes and make no excuses and not try to
twist his way out of it.
Oh, and you snipped my comments about the "herd" and the simple ways you can
test to see if I am right or wrong. Why is that? Why not ask:
* RonB for examples of my comments where I have been against choice
* HPT for support for his claims that I forged videos (etc.)
* Peter for examples of the lies he claims I tell
* TomB for the quote where I called him a pedophile
* Chris A. for the quote where I claimed software is useless
unless it is like Mac/Win software
* chrisv for examples of the lies he accuses me of telling
Also ask these folks to name some ways in which desktop Linux is inherently
flawed - intrinsic reasons why there are few users of a product that is
free.
Their responses - complete dodges - will educate you about the "herd".
Which is the very reason you will never ask. It is not as if you do not
know they just make up insults and accusations they know are not true.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
> On 2011-08-05, the following emerged from the brain of Chris:
>> Am Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:24:51 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
> 8<
>
>> I also believe that this is what you wanted to do all along: You
>> repeat so often your "Stallman defends child pornography and you
>> defend Stallman"-mantra that my and TomB's few answers are simply
>> not seen by the casual reader.
>
> Of course. He just floods the thread with his inane and obtuse drivel.
> He's generating so much noise that reasonable people are simply not
> heard anymore. But he's a troll, and that's what trolls do.
See: TomB lashes out... just to gain acceptance by the herd. It is not as
if Chris is not posting to me as much as I am posting to him.
>> Sorry, but after I have said similar things so many times now I
>> think you should finally get it.
>
> No, he will never 'get it'. That would mean he can no longer troll
> you.
And here TomB implies I am being disingenuous. Without a shred of evidence.
>> This "claim" is simply my impression. Most often when you do that
>> "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" thing I ask myself what's wrong with
>> this guy and why can't he simply reply as any other normal person.
>
> Or not answer at all. But he does this because he's a troll.
I actually have given quote a detailed answer. Here, again:
---------
Oh, and you snipped my comments about the "herd" and the simple ways you can
test to see if I am right or wrong. Why is that? Why not ask:
* RonB for examples of my comments where I have been against choice
* HPT for support for his claims that I forged videos (etc.)
* Peter for examples of the lies he claims I tell
* TomB for the quote where I called him a pedophile
* Chris A. for the quote where I claimed software is useless
unless it is like Mac/Win software
* chrisv for examples of the lies he accuses me of telling
Also ask these folks to name some ways in which desktop Linux is inherently
flawed - intrinsic reasons why there are few users of a product that is
free.
Their responses - complete dodges - will educate you about the "herd".
Which is the very reason you will never ask. It is not as if you do not
know they just make up insults and accusations they know are not true.
---------
> You know, he thinks its odd that he's almost universally disliked by
> the GNU/Linux advocates in COLA, but what the fsck does he expect?
Oh, I expect the herd behavior by now... I expect the lies and the empty
insults.
> What he's doing here is the equivalent of walking into a Jazz club,
> walk up to the mic and say: "Jazz is not liked by many people. It is
> not popular, and therefor its quality is sub-standard. Rock and pop
> are the way to go, people!" The club owner will kick him out, and all
> the people in the club will boo him. Those people are there to enjoy
> Jazz music, and don't want to be told that it sucks, just like *we*
> are in this usenet group to talk about the advantages of GNU/Linux,
> and don't want to be told that it sucks.
Who said it sucks?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2011-08-05, the following emerged from the brain of Chris:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Of course. He just floods the thread with his inane and obtuse drivel.
>> He's generating so much noise that reasonable people are simply not
>> heard anymore. But he's a troll, and that's what trolls do.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> No, he will never 'get it'. That would mean he can no longer troll
>> you.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>> This "claim" is simply my impression. Most often when you do that
>>> "Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!" thing I ask myself what's wrong with
>>> this guy and why can't he simply reply as any other normal person.
>>
>> Or not answer at all. But he does this because he's a troll.
>
> Exactly.
See... another Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!
Nothing there is based on anything Chris A. shows any belief in... he is
just supporting the herd.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chris
Snit wrote:
>> Even if my interpretation is correct it doesn't mean I agree with what he
>> says, but it is a position worth discussing - and when discussed I'd like
>> an actual expert in the biology and psychology of children and
>> adolescents to evaluate the respective arguments.
>
> What? You need experts to know his comments are repulsive? I do not.
Since he is speaking about laws I was going to too. I don't want laws based
on what I feel repulsive about, but rather based on what actual experts know
about the topic.
<snip> :)
>> What is your opinion what he would write if he was honest?
>
> He would admit to the things he writes and make no excuses and not try to
> twist his way out of it.
As vague as I thought it to be.
As I said, since you have no position to talk about I'll let it be.
<snip>
> Their responses - complete dodges - will educate you about the "herd".
>
> Which is the very reason you will never ask. It is not as if you do not
> know they just make up insults and accusations they know are not true.
Wow.
TomB
> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
8<
>> Or not answer at all. But he does this because he's a troll.
>
> Exactly.
Make that a lying troll. I see he now is even claiming that I said
that he called me a pedophile[1]. What a nutjob.
[1] Even having to write sentence like this shows what a freaking
circus the troll erects when he engages in a 'debate'.
--
Life is a sexually transmitted disease.
~ R.D. Laing
TomB
8<
>> Which is the very reason you will never ask. It is not as if you do not
>> know they just make up insults and accusations they know are not true.
>
> Wow.
Amazing eh? Apparently Snit knows you better that you!
--
I am the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and Fries.
~ Stephen King
Snit
8:34 AM:
> (Testing out how knode works for me)
>
> Snit wrote:
>
>>> Even if my interpretation is correct it doesn't mean I agree with what he
>>> says, but it is a position worth discussing - and when discussed I'd like
>>> an actual expert in the biology and psychology of children and
>>> adolescents to evaluate the respective arguments.
>>
>> What? You need experts to know his comments are repulsive? I do not.
>
> Since he is speaking about laws I was going to too. I don't want laws based
> on what I feel repulsive about, but rather based on what actual experts know
> about the topic.
>
> <snip> :)
What information are you lacking? And remember, I am not saying he is
guilty of anything - just that he should be investigated.
>>> What is your opinion what he would write if he was honest?
>>
>> He would admit to the things he writes and make no excuses and not try to
>> twist his way out of it.
>
> As vague as I thought it to be.
Again: I am not going to speak for him. On one hand you accuse me of doing
so and on the other you complain I will not.
> As I said, since you have no position to talk about I'll let it be.
My position is simple: his words - posted on his own site (with the one
noted exception) - are clearly repulsive and he should be investigated to
see if he has acted inappropriately based on his stated views.
A simple position... and more defendable than yours, which is one should
read his words and assume fringe cases to try to excuse the man... and then
ignore his more direct comments where there is no fringe excuse (such as the
direct comments about having porn in high schools and calling it educational
material).
> <snip>
>
>> Their responses - complete dodges - will educate you about the "herd".
>>
>> Which is the very reason you will never ask. It is not as if you do not
>> know they just make up insults and accusations they know are not true.
>
> Wow.
So why not ask? Easy: you know I am right. You made claims about my
statements about the herd. I noted you were incorrect and you asked for
support - so I gave it to you. You and I and, frankly, every regular member
of COLA knows I am right. None of the named people will offer any quotes
from me to back their accusations and insults... and most will not even try.
Those that do will offer quotes that do not back their claims.
This is known because they have - repeatedly - been asked these questions.
They have *no* legitimate answers. None. They make up stories about people
outside of the herd simply to build and maintain their position in the herd.
You have an easy test... and if you like I will happily ask them myself -
but we both know they will pretend to never see my posts (or perhaps not see
it - who cares).
So why not stand behind your words and show where I am wrong.
Easy: you know I am right. As noted, all regulars in COLA know I am right.
It is not like anyone really questions this - though many pretend to.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 2011-08-05, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
> 8<
>
>>> Or not answer at all. But he does this because he's a troll.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Make that a lying troll. I see he now is even claiming that I said
> that he called me a pedophile[1]. What a nutjob.
>
> [1] Even having to write sentence like this shows what a freaking
> circus the troll erects when he engages in a 'debate'.
You said:
<201108030...@usenet.drumscum.be>
-----
Okay Snit, you have crossed a line here. Suggest *one* more
time that I'm am somehow support child pornography and
pedophilia, and I will contact an attorney myself. This is
slander.
...
So again: suggest *ONE* more time that I am supporting child
pornography and pedophilia, and I will take this beyond
usenet.
-----
<201108031...@usenet.drumscum.be>
-----
Snit really went to far this this time. Look at the bit you
quoted above, where he suggests that I'm *supporting* child
pornography and pedophilia. Pure slanter.
-----
That is what I have attributed to you. If I misrepresented that somewhere
please point it out. If you are right I will happily admit to it and
apologize.
Note you will not do the same for your accusations against me: I have
directly asked you to back your above claims about me.
And you ran.
So why not rise to my level? Why not be honest - as I am.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 2011-08-05, the following emerged from the brain of chris:
>
> 8<
>
>>> Which is the very reason you will never ask. It is not as if you do not
>>> know they just make up insults and accusations they know are not true.
>>
>> Wow.
>
> Amazing eh? Apparently Snit knows you better that you!
I know how the "herd" works... as do you. Everyone in COLA knows I am
correct in this, hence the reason none of the following people will ever
answer the questions I pose:
--------
Oh, and you snipped my comments about the "herd" and the simple ways you can
test to see if I am right or wrong. Why is that? Why not ask:
* RonB for examples of my comments where I have been against choice
* HPT for support for his claims that I forged videos (etc.)
* Peter for examples of the lies he claims I tell
* TomB for the quote where I called him a pedophile
* Chris A. for the quote where I claimed software is useless
unless it is like Mac/Win software
* chrisv for examples of the lies he accuses me of telling
Also ask these folks to name some ways in which desktop Linux is inherently
flawed - intrinsic reasons why there are few users of a product that is
free.
--------
Everyone in COLA knows I am right - hence the reason the above named people
will *all* run. This is completely predictable.
Instead, the above people will repeat their accusations and back each other
as they do - all knowing there is not a shred of evidence to back any of
those accusations.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
Thanks.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> schrieb Snit:
>> Chris stated:
>>> schrieb Snit:
>>>
>>>> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with Stallman and say
>>>> he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
>>>
>>> Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new
>>> thread for that and why you don't provide a full quote with context?
>>
>> It was meant mostly for TomB, but if you want a link to the referenced
>> post I can find it for you.
>
> That doesn't really answer the question...
Perhaps not, but it confirms a statement by Zara:
149- zara: "Look - I'm not into combing through thousands of posts, to
prove what was said or not said - I leave stuff like that to people
without lives, like Snit. But it is assuredly, in the record. Ping Snit
to do a search - you will flatter him, and give meaning to his tawdry
little life." 25 Oct 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a1d4fc7120a6a538
<SNIP>
>> "child pornography". This term is dishonest, since the law defines
>> "child" as "anyone under 18". For instance, Americans _of age 16_
>> are hardly children. They are sexually mature, almost half of them
>> have had sex, and any normal adult will find them attractive. But
>> our government calls them "children", with the implication that
>> being attracted to them makes you a pervert.
>
> 16 year olds, sexually mature. Why do you think he chose that example?
> My suggestion: Because that is what he is talking about all along.
> Provide evidence against that suggestion, please?
What I find more disturbing, is why Snit has such an obsession with child
pornography, that he would bring this up in a Linux advocacy group. But
it is not the first time.
Elizabot: "We have Michael Glasser running around talking about incest,
necrophilia and other perversions, who constantly makes sexually
disparaging remarks about me and claims to be a teacher. You really need
to get some serious mental help, Mike. [...] Before your daughter was
born, you wrote 25,400 posts here. [...] 447 of these posts had either
(sex OR incest) in them. [...] In the nine months after your daughter was
born, you wrote 7940 posts. [...] 2060 of those posts had either (sex OR
incest) in them. [...] That's over 25% of your posts, Mike. What the hell
is wrong with you?" 13 Mar 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/232929ce1d450342
This is a good reason why Snit belongs in the bottom of a kill filter.
Any good that he states is seriously heavily outweighed by his remaining
disparaging posts.
--
HPT
Snit
AM:
> Chris wrote:
>> schrieb Snit:
>>> Chris stated:
>>>> schrieb Snit:
>>>>
>>>>> He is very offended that anyone would lump him with Stallman and say
>>>>> he agrees with Stallman. Which is all very reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> Oh really? Can you give a single sane reason why you created a new
>>>> thread for that and why you don't provide a full quote with context?
>>>
>>> It was meant mostly for TomB, but if you want a link to the referenced
>>> post I can find it for you.
>>
>> That doesn't really answer the question...
>
> Perhaps not, but it confirms a statement by Zara:
Who cares.
...
>>> "child pornography". This term is dishonest, since the law defines
>>> "child" as "anyone under 18". For instance, Americans _of age 16_
>>> are hardly children. They are sexually mature, almost half of them
>>> have had sex, and any normal adult will find them attractive. But
>>> our government calls them "children", with the implication that
>>> being attracted to them makes you a pervert.
>>
>> 16 year olds, sexually mature. Why do you think he chose that example?
>> My suggestion: Because that is what he is talking about all along.
>> Provide evidence against that suggestion, please?
>
> What I find more disturbing, is why Snit has such an obsession with child
> pornography, that he would bring this up in a Linux advocacy group.
For crying out loud, HPT, you have no clue who Stallman even is. That is
just amazing. I mean, really, not even I thought you were that ignorant of
Linux and its history.
...
> This is a good reason why Snit belongs in the bottom of a kill filter.
So kill file me and never speak of me again. We will both be happy.
> Any good that he states is seriously heavily outweighed by his remaining
> disparaging posts.
Poor HPT: he loathes the fact I called him on his lies. Hey, you lying
jerk, where is your evidence I forged videos and the like?
Oh. You have no evidence. You are just a lying piece of... defecation.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Gary Stewart
Looks like HPT is hitting the firewater once again.
--
8/6/2011 9:38:36 AM
Gary Stewart
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Come laugh at Linux "advocacy" with us!
http://www.youtube.com/social/blog/techrights-org
Linux's dismal desktop market share:
http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop
glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Desktop Linux on Life Support:
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/is-linux-on-the-desktop-dead--961508
When I use the term Linux I am speaking of desktop Linux unless
otherwise stated.
Snit
8/6/11 6:39 AM:
That HPT did not show any sign of knowing who Stallman even is just amazed
me. Not even I suspected he was that out of his league here.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Any good that he states is seriously heavily outweighed by his
>>> remaining disparaging posts.
>>
>> Poor HPT: he loathes the fact I called him on his lies. Hey, you lying
>> jerk, where is your evidence I forged videos and the like?
>>
>> Oh. You have no evidence. You are just a lying piece of...
>> defecation.
You have an uncanny ability to confirm my statements.
<SNIP>
--
HPT
127- Steve Travis: "Oh oh... Now look what we've done. Snit has lost all
self respect and has sunk to the point of using words like 'asses' when
referring to others. Oh, how could the morally superior snit have fallen
so low. Please take a moment out of your busy schedule to feel embarassed
for him. Or perhaps we should set up a fund to get him more happy glue
(and the appropriate plastic bags)." 27 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3edd9ab69425a6c5
Snit
PM:
> Gary Stewart wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper stated:
>>>
>>>> Any good that he states is seriously heavily outweighed by his
>>>> remaining disparaging posts.
>>>
>>> Poor HPT: he loathes the fact I called him on his lies. Hey, you lying
>>> jerk, where is your evidence I forged videos and the like?
>>>
>>> Oh. You have no evidence. You are just a lying piece of...
>>> defecation.
>
> You have an uncanny ability to confirm my statements.
>
> <SNIP>
Where is the evidence to support your accusations? Remember, easy to prove
me wrong - if you and the others in the "herd" just show there is a logical
basic for your accusations then my claims about the herd are wrong:
--------
Oh, and you snipped my comments about the "herd" and the simple ways you can
test to see if I am right or wrong. Why is that? Why not ask:
* RonB for examples of my comments where I have been against choice
* HPT for support for his claims that I forged videos (etc.)
* Peter for examples of the lies he claims I tell
* TomB for the quote where I called him a pedophile
* Chris A. for the quote where I claimed software is useless
unless it is like Mac/Win software
* chrisv for examples of the lies he accuses me of telling
Also ask these folks to name some ways in which desktop Linux is inherently
flawed - intrinsic reasons why there are few users of a product that is
free.
--------
Why is it so hard to prove me wrong?
Time for the "advocates" to all run behind claims of kill filters! Can't be
proved wrong *again* so easily. LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]