"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.