Stallman survives Peruvian quake

Hitler and Nazis!

OK -- let me get this straight:

Hitler had Asperger's?

> Let's leave it at that.

No problem. His comments left plenty of room for disagreement.

> Hitler and Nazis!

There's a corollary which says attempting to end a thread by using the terms doesn't work. :)

Quoting:There's a corollary which says attempting to end a thread by using the terms doesn't work. :)

You guys are gunna give me a corollary.... er.. something like that.

>You guys are gunna give me a corollary

You wish -- best car Toyota ever made.

Although why the coral chose to grow on him remains a mystery.

>Although why the coral chose to grow on him remains a mystery.

Ouch.

And there I had been thinking of the place where new Marines are born.

"They probably did not attribute the collapse to the ill will of an evil deity, but nevertheless, that's what it was."

Had he said this, I would have to agree with you.

"They probably did not attribute the collapse to the ill will of an evil deity, but it would be equally logical."

That's what he said. Do you really not see the _essential_ difference between taking someone else's logic -- hypothetically -- to its natural conclusion, and subscribing to that conclusion (which anyone knowing RMS would know is impossible)? You amaze me Dean.

The post to which you responded was intentionally short, as I expected the argument to speak for itself. Funny medium, text.

>You amaze me Dean.

Why?

>Do you really not see the _essential_ difference between >taking someone else's logic -- hypothetically -- to its natural conclusion

As an academic, it may be difficult for you to see things that lie outside the text. In the real world, where people live and die, laugh and cry, we are expected to understand the impact of our words and actions.

The same statement made over beers with friends on an ordinary day is not a problem, even if transcribed or loaded up to YouTube for the world to see.

Don Imus can get fired for 3 words when he is supposedly a comedian. There is the new and improved standard to which you can judge. Weigh RMS comments vs a comedians 3 words, looks like its time to find a new spokesperson to me in that light.

Whats the phrase we bandy about now and then ... oh yeah, "You own your words"

> Do you really not see the _essential_ difference between taking someone else's logic -- hypothetically -- to its natural conclusion, and subscribing to that conclusion (which anyone knowing RMS would know is impossible)?

Do YOU really not see that doing so was completely inappropriate given the recent events?

There is seldom a good reason for ridiculing someone else's religious beliefs. A time when those beliefs might be the only thing sustaining them is particularly inappropriate.

Quoting: There is seldom a good reason for ridiculing someone else's religious beliefs. A time when those beliefs might be the only thing sustaining them is particularly inappropriate.

I'll agree with that, but I can't agree with the common perception on this thread that RMS is a complete jerk. It was bad judgment, but nothing that makes the man evil. He doesn't spew crap most of the time and is generally (it would seem, at least) a good person. After all, it was his view that not sharing would be immoral that led him to develop the GPL.

Also, would it not have been reasonable for Linux.com to use Editorial judgment and whack that last part? Yes, RMS would still have been just as guilty of bad judgment, but I think Linux.com has to be found guilty of the same bad judgment. Or were they hoping for a little controversy to stir up traffic? I think it's a question that begs asking. I don't mean that as an excuse for RMS, but if I wanted to write a feature for Lxer slamming dino or tuxchick or jdixon (unreasonably slamming, that is, since we've all put enough stuff on the forums at times to be skewered for, LOL!) would it be wise Editorial policy to publish it? I'd still be a jerk for writing it, but Lxer doesn't have to be a crappy publication and publish it, right?

:)

>but nothing that makes the man evil.

No. And we should be very clear: being a jerk is not the same as being evil.

You might have a bad day. You might not know better. Etc.

Or you might be an atheist, and not consider the contradictions of religion to be a taboo subject.

Or you might not be an atheist, and thus not consider the contradictions of atheism to be a taboo subject (oops - dons flame suit)

Ha, no flame suit needed. I see no contradictions, just as those who disagree with me see no contradictions in their own view.

I'm quite curious, actually, in what the contradictions are that anyone sees who looks "in from the outside" as it were, in any world view. Being close to an issue can cause a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation.

>Or you might be an atheist, and not consider the contradictions of religion to be a taboo subject.

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

Someone please change the direction of this thread before I am forced to moderate it. I have let it go for too long as it is.

The subject of religion is for another place, not LXer. Let's try and stick to the subject of the story.

Scott: I think you just need to go ahead and moderate the thread, these discussions never really die.....