Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>    Note that even as you continue to bombard GNU with continually
>    repeated insults (yes, insults), there is no call to censor you,
>    and I can guarantee to you that Richard Stallman would not
>    countenance any such censoring, were he to express a view.
>
> Well, he would, he has expressed such views for other mailing lists
> and considered removing one or two members appropriate.
>
> It would be only censorship if specific posts got through, not if all
> posts by some members were to be deleted automaatically.

I don't think you'd even get RMS to join this absurd definition.
Shutting a particular person out is censorship.  When this person is
posting excessive nonsense, usually crossposted to inflammatory groups
with different content, under pseudonyms because he would not want to be
associated with the sort of drivel he puts forth, then this censorship
may simply be a necessary evil.  You can't argue with people who _want_
to pick a fight.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about putting "Rjack" off list distribution, but
then he'll be sure to come back with a new pseudonym and more spite.
Not much use in that.

Terekhov is different.  He actually puts his name on the line.  And he
apparently believes in his own drivel and weird mental jumps.  Yes, he
is out to deride the GNU project and the GPL, but at least he is serious
about it.  Ruling him off the list would not just be censoring
provocation, but also hidden in all his provocation and however
misguided, content.  He has something to say, however wrong he may turn
out all the time.  Rjack hasn't.

Shutting either of them off would certainly be censorship.  But the
cases are different.

-- 
David Kastrup