Elias @eliasr@librem.one

@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/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> You continue to claim that people are
> being dishonest even though I've made
> it clear to you that I believe the claims.

You say that as if "the claims" is something that you can believe as a whole. That does not make sense. I have pointed to something specific that is false, I did so also in the article where you found the spelling error. Go and look it up, you will find that there is something false being referred to.

4/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> You have continued to spread every
> single article defending RMS

That is not true. For example, I have chosen not to spread the "pro-RMS" Github letter because I found it too harsh, too angry. I prefer more constructive dialogue.

3/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> You have continued claiming about CoC breaking

In my opinion, the open letter does not follow the advice of "Be friendly, Be empathetic, Be respectful", from the GNOME CoC. Do you have a different opinion about that?

> and then you claimed to be confused
> and wanting to hear the opinion of gnome developers

Yes, I have a hard time understanding how people working with GNOME projects can think signing such a letter is okay. I do want to hear then explain their thinking.

2/?

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> You misspelled "something" as "somthing"

Oh, thanks, I corrected that now.

> You have not addressed my concerns

I'm sorry, let me try to do that now.

> You have continued claiming
> the open letter is a mob attack.

There I think you put words in my mouth. But if what you mean is that I have pointed out that many people have together attacked a single person with a focus of trying to paint him as a terrible person, then, well, that's just what happened.

1/?

@cwebber@octodon.social I also wrote something related to this:

https://eliasrudberg.se/rms/

@mlemweb@octodon.social

Hello, doctor Lemmer-Webber. I heard on the podcast that you signed the open letter to "remove RMS". I wrote this about it, I hope you can find time to read it:

https://eliasrudberg.se/rms/

@Framasoft

Hi, I see Framasoft listed as one of the organizations that signed the open letter to "remove RMS". Then this is for you:

https://eliasrudberg.se/rms/

@torproject

Hi, I see Tor Project listed as one of the organizations that signed the open letter to "remove RMS". Then this is for you:

https://eliasrudberg.se/rms/

@arh@toots.alirezahayati.com @fsfi I just put up my own statement about the RMS open letter thing, or maybe statement is not the right word for it, but anyway, here it is:

https://eliasrudberg.se/rms/

@lionirdeadman@fosstodon.org

> wanting to hear the opinion of gnome developers

Yes, I still want to hear from them.

I wrote this, please read and help pass it on to others if you know other people who signed the open letter, this is for them, I would like to hear what they think about it:

https://eliasrudberg.se/rms/

What do you think about it? I really tried to make it constructive and not dismiss any concerns.

@libreleah

> all the divisions and "civil wars" happening.

I wrote something trying to help regarding that stuff, here:

Comment on the open letter to "remove RMS", based on the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines

https://eliasrudberg.se/rms/

Here is my own contribution to the #RMS debate, about the open letter and #fsf and so on.

Comment on the open letter to "remove RMS", based on the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines

https://eliasrudberg.se/rms/

This is not another escalation, it's something else. It's about how we communicate. I thought a lot about it. Hopefully this can reach some of the people who signed the open letter.

Boosts welcome.

@joao Nice! This is the same camera app that @martijnbraam has been working on?

@jrballesteros05 The use of such "trending" listings is a worrying trend in itself 🙂

I get particularly annoyed when supposedly serious news organizations making real journalism, like https://www.theguardian.com/ still cannot resist that idea, even they nowadays put a "most read" listing on their page. I wish they would understand that what I want from them is not to read what everyone else reads, I want to read what is good and relevant news according to The Guardian. Not "most read".

@adnan360 @redstarfish

I agree, they really should allow people to remove their names. Especially since it's about a personal attack, it's understandable that some people may not want to be part of it anymore after they think it through and maybe they looked up some of the details and find they cannot really stand behind that.

If they really don't allow names to be removed, I hope someone will have the guts to say publicly "I signed not knowing this and that, now I want my name removed".

@shiba

> A lot of the people on that list honestly believe they are fighting
> some "Holy War", so whatever offense they commit they feel justified.

Yes, that's the impression I got also.

For example, if I say personal attacks should be avoided, they answer that they agree with that in general but that in this particular case it's so important to get what they want that they make an exception. They throw principles out the window and they think that's acceptable "for the greater good".