Elias @eliasr@librem.one

@clacke Those three also have "-- Outgoing" after their names on the "Staff and Board" page: https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board/

Meanwhile, I keep wondering if and how the GNOME Foundation can get away with organizing the "open letter" -- the GNOME Foundation as an organization launching a harsh personal attack citing misleading sources.

I was hoping for some kind of comment or explanation in response to this https://eliasrudberg.se/rms/ but there is just compact silence from #GNOME folks about this.

@eastcoastweb OK let me try again 🙂

The default file manager in GNOME, called nautilus, can be used to access FTP servers. In the panel to the left in nautilus you choose "Other Locations", then you have "Connect to Server" at the bottom, enter e.g. "ftp://ftp.vim.org/" there. Maybe not as smooth as FileZilla but it seems to work.

@eastcoastweb There is always the good old command-line tool that is simply called "ftp" (netkit-ftp). Otherwise check the Category/Network-hookup/ftp category in the Free Software Directory: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Category/Network-hookup/ftp

@jameshjacksonjr Ah, I just saw that news from Finland and then I thought we were maybe neighbors because I'm in Sweden. 🙂

@jameshjacksonjr Are you in Finland?

Just noticed a spelling mistake there: I wrote amazing but of course it should be amaizeing in this case 😄

Amazing how fast #corn grows. I put three grains in the soil one week ago, now they're already 7-8 cm tall. #gardening #maize

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

If arguments are presented clearly and honestly like that (like Bradley did), then I will listen. But if someone makes unfair attacks like the open letter does, then the most important thing for me becomse to defend the person who has been unfairly accused. It also becomes important for me to not give in to demands of such an unfair attack, because that would signal that the methods used are acceptable.

Sorry for writing so lengthy, now I am finally done.

10/10

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> and seem to refuse to condemn actions.

I can say that I appreciate the statement that Bradley M. Kuhn wrote here: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

9/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> Your actions speak an entirely different
> story. You seem interested in defending
> RMS

I do want to defend him when I see him being unfairly attacked. That does not mean I dismiss all problems that have been raised, but defending someone against unfair accusations is more important to me, it is about something bigger than RMS.

8/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

In a similar way, even if you think that a misleading reference is no big deal, please consider that others may think it is a big deal. In my opinion, using a misleading source when attacking a person is a very bad thing to do, much worse than the shouting example above.

Your personal view may be that misleading sources is okay, but please consider that others, like me for example, think misleading sources are unacceptable, especially when used in a personal attack.

7/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

That's about understanding how something you say/do is perceived by other people. As an example, people have complained about RMS shouting. Then, people defending RMS have responded that shouting is no big deal, nothing to worry about. But it may be a big deal to some of the people he shouted at, it may have been really hurtful.

6/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

So in this case, while you (who signed the letter) may think a misleading source is no big deal, it will be seen as a big deal by those who feel unfairly attacked.

5/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

Another side of it can be understood if you put yourself in the position of those who feel attacked. That's not only RMS himself but many others as well, as you probably know a lot of people have been offended by the open letter. Try to imagine how it looks from their point of view. There is an attack, and it uses a misleading source. We (humans) tend to become very defensive when attacked, and we tend to focus on parts that seem unfair.

4/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

One thing is that it simply weakens the whole thing in the eyes of readers. After all, if there is a strong case to be made, then why would a misleading reference be used? If the case is strong, then there should be no problem finding solid references.

3/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

In my view, when a group of people are writing accusations against one person, as the open letter does, then it is very important to make sure everything is correct and nothing is misleading. If one of the references is misleading then that is a big problem, for me it would mean I would not support those accusations, I would not sign something like that.

To explain why it is important to avoid misleading sources:

2/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> The headline and the article are misleading, yes.
> I believe it's a bad source for quote 2.

OK, then we agree on that. But probably we have different opinions regarding the importance of it.

1/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> > Like the headline of that article referred to.
>
> The letter explains it and I agree with that.

So you agree that the headline of that vice.com article is wrong?

> I still believe that you are [dishonest]
> even if it's not intentional.

Is it possible to be unintentionally dishonest? I think then it should be called something else, maybe "misguided" or something.

Anyway, thanks for at least allowing for the possibility that I am not intentionally dishonest. 🙂

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> you are dishonest

No, I am not.

> You piss me off.

That, I cannot argue with. It is probably true. But I would like to help you move from being pissed off, to instead understand what I mean.

I had hoped that the article (with the fixed spelling error) would help, I tried to be very careful with writing that.

Anyway, now I have at least tried to addressed your concerns. I'm going to bed, happy to discuss this more tomorrow.

6/6

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

In my opinion, if you make a personal attack (which you should probably not do in the first place), then it is not good if something you reference as basis for accusations turns out to be wrong. Like the headline of that article referred to.

I would like to understand your position regarding that; is it that you don't see anything wrong, or you see there is something wrong but you don't think it matters?

5/?