[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RMS and fresh censorship attempts
Re: RMS and fresh censorship attempts
Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:45:59 +0300
* Daniel Pocock <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2021-03-25 21:21]:
> I don't know if this message will be received or not
> Is it a coincidence that RMS returns to the FSF board and there is a
> simultaneous campaign to censor blogs from other web sites and
Censorship, especially in US is on raise. You have not mentioned which
> Is anybody else experiencing these censorship attempts on mailing lists,
> IRC, Planet sites, social media or anywhere else?
Be more specific, did you experience adn what exactly happened?
> The petition against RMS is a prima-facie example of cyberbullying
Yes. And it derives from a case that was not looked upon by none of
the people who are led to believe that RMS did something wrong. He is
not even related to a case.
We never even spoke or mentioned the case, and that does not help in
discovery of how perpetrators of defamation of RMS deviate the words
of the alleged victim -- not related to RMS at all.
The alleged victim of Epstein is Virginia Giuffre, and in her
deposition she said that "she was sent to have sex" with various
people, and when asked to clarify if she had sex with those people she
repeated that "she was sent to have sex" -- not that she had sex with
those people. She has hard time remembering faces of people that she
said to have slept with them and she asked third parties to help her
with names -- and third parties gave her some few names, like "this
one, we believe he is the one" -- but how third party can know what
happened to her? In general her boss was telling her to have sex with
some people. She did not say she had sex actually, she said she was
directed to go to places with them. It is because she was in the
lifestyle she enjoyed and others enjoyed the lifestyle with her - as
that is the statement in her deposition. Police was not called, why?
Because they enjoyed the lifestyle. She enjoyed making pictures with
people. She did not tell her parents until she got three children. Her
parents were probably thinking she had a good time with famous people
-- I just assume personally, they did not think she was sexually
traficked, she did not report nothing bad happening to her at the
Read the deposition paper.
Epstein funded many people and organizations. How can those
organizations and people know what is going on in somebody's else
premises? They may not be related at all to Epstein cases.
To be directed to make sex with somebody is quite different of
actually having sex.
And now we speak like it is all clear, but it is not clear, as 99.99%
of people did not read the deposition papers, unspoken of reading all
the evidences around those cases.
So it is deposition and cases full of contradictions, and she admitted
that she was giving false information several times.
And then we speak of RMS who analyzed facts, much less than I am
analyzing it right now - and he expressed his opinion, conclusion of
the analysis -- that opinion is used by "terminate" him which must
have OTHER purposes than those which are publicly expressed, as he
said nothing else but what the victim admitted her own deposition,
that she was enjoying the life style!
One big LOL there!
So RMS is to be boycotted and canceled for reiterating the victim's
own deposition! Victim never said to be raped, she said she enjoyed
the lifestyle and was directed to have sex with people which names she
could not remember, and she did not say she had sex, she was sent to
For a normal person, when we ask somebody: "Where were you sent by Joe
to have sex with Jane?" - when person answers "Many places" -- that
will for a normal person easily be taken out of the context and
understood that person actually had sex with Jane, but for courts that
does not fly. If we wish to look into the context exactly, we have to
find the other question in the deposition where victim Virginia
Giuffre is asked: "You had sex with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX at many places
is what you're saying, correct?" -- where she answers "I was sent to
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX at many places to have sex with him." -- that is why
many evidences were dropped from those cases, including the sexual
The case is definitely beyond Minsky, as he is just mentioned in the
case and Virginia did not say she had sex with Minsky, but that she
was directed to have sex with Minsky. She had quite a choice
there. The case was not about Minsky, it is something else,
The case of Virginia Giuffre is totally not related to FSF, it is
absolutely not related to GNU and not related to RMS.
RMS just as any other person on this planet is free to access court
documents, just as I accessed it and to make conclusions and personal
opinions on such, and for reading court documents or making some
opinions on what really happened, one shall not be boycotted and
become a subject of hate.
> The posts that various organizations have made about RMS on their blogs
> and Planet sites are violations of their own Codes of Conduct.
Of course, but do those people see and are they aware of it? I don't
The only way forward is to get the full context, as we cannot
understand the word "neck" if we do not know the context, we may just
assume it means what we think first to mean like the part of an
organism (human or animal) that connects the head to the rest of the
body, but we cannot without the context if the word "neck" was used as
in the definition as a narrow part of an artifact that resembles a
neck in position or form; "the banjo had a long neck"; "the bottle had
a wide neck")
Some people have taken private conversation from private mailing list
by RMS and have published it out of the context. If anybody wish to
truly publish some facts, that person should collect all the
references to re-create and present the proper context we are speaking
about, as only with the context surrounding some statement we can
fully understand the statement.
The hate propaganda against RMS is using statements out of the
context. That is just one method on how to defame people.
People who have good intentions will truthfully present the context,
that way the intention of the statement does not get perverted.
People without good intentions will like to pervert statements.
> This demonstrates the Animal Farm phenomena is well and truly at
> work. When it comes to obeying a Code of Conduct, all animals are
> equal but some animals are more equal than others.