"I'm out of arguments, so you're just a ..."
Please don't do that.
>by saying accusations are "too old" / "he / she isn't remembering correctly".
It's been nearly a week now. That's a long time for people to come forward with police reports, official complaints, etc. So far there is "Knight for Justice (also: hot ladies)", and, "I hear people have spider plants in their offices to keep him away."
>You have the gall to call anyone who does care SJWs,
I do? Feel free to quote my stuff back at me. I know you won't, because you can't, so you resort to making stuff up about things you hope I would have said.
Please don't make stuff up, it's all there for you to read.
>I guess I didn't expect anything more from you.
I'm sorry if I disappointed you. But I can only start caring the moment someone presents me with something substantial to care about.
Maybe that offends you as a religious person, but it's hardly fair to hold that against Stallman whose audiences are usually mainly fellow atheists, or religious people who can tolerate being the subject of a bit of light satire.
"mav3rick: What about the KoolAid that HN drinks against anything Facebook, Google ?"
"mav3rick: He seems like an out and out terrorist."
I think these are indicative you will say whatever it takes to discredit rms, because he takes a stand against everything you believe in.
You are being dishonest in your motivations. I think I'll conveniently ignore you all together.
Even your comments are all pro RMS yet I'm engaging you.
If some religious members of an audience, who are very serious about their faith, go to see a known outspoken atheist, maybe that wasn't the best idea. As far as I know the St. IGNUcius skit is fairly well received in general.
Not at all. Again, something I didn't say or imply. Please make an effort to read what I write, not what you think I wrote (e.g. "That's a long time", empatically not: "That's enough time"). If something substantial comes up at a later time, I will make sure to critically read it.
> You say that other accusations are "too old"
I said that one specific accusation is probably too old to retrieve the exact words and circumstances, and as such can be considered unsubstantiated.
> this is precisely why victims are afraid to come forward in every such case.
What case(s) are you referring to? To put it differently: what, exactly, do you think Stallman is "getting away" with here? And why do you think he's getting away with it?
> No one takes them seriously and in fact vilifies them more than the alleged perpetrator.
That is of course very regrettable, but again, how does Stallman fit in here? You can't just take a person you obviously dislike, ascribe various characteristics and motivations to them, and then rile against that.
> Have fun being a "Knight of RMS", defend him on his most egregious qualities.
I'm not having "fun", and I don't see why you would assume that. I find the whole situation very regrettable.
"He kept the door open to proudly showcase" could have easily been "He kept to door shut to hide his actions", that is: both cases would be equally damning from the writer's perspective, and hinges only on their "implications that went with it" which are their invention alone.
Facts remaining, he had a mattress in his office. He left his door open. Sometimes people were sitting on the bed.
> "it happened long ago, so it isn't true"
No. It happened a long time ago. People, over time, remember the emotional impact of something on them, but no longer the precise wording. She remembers the gist of someone talking about suicide, because that's what she thought he meant. Without the exact wording and cirumstances, it can be very difficult to figure out what transpired. So it's not "it isn't true" or "she must be lying", but the account is unsubstantiated, likely irretrievably so, because "it happened a long time ago."
> completely disregarding the fact
I don't disregard them, I check them one by one, and so far I found them lacking.
Why are you angry at me for reading what other people said before believing them at face value?
> that all these accusations have been corroborated by witnesses, ranging from people interviewed on several media and dozens of reports and online comments from people who claim to have worked with him over the years, let alone the several unrelated victims of his "urban legends", and most of all, the fact that people repeatedly let him know about his attitude and he didn't give a damn.
Please provide links outside of twitter. So far most accusations lead back to the initial article on medium by Salem G.
> In short, yet another big, somehow coordinated witch hunt by overly sensitive SJWs.
I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. I read the allegations, try to find the various sources, and try to put them into a logical context. I guess I'm simply a Knight for Justice (also: old weirdos)