>That is, to say the least, relevant information for anyone else who might consider lending him a guest bedroom.

Sure, but that's not what's going on in that thread.

It's basically just a pissing contest, with participants across the internet, about 'ridiculous' stories involving RMS.

A link to the famous rms-foot meme is by no means a warning to future hospitable folks.

It's not some neighborhood watch newsletter to warn about a predator, it's just a bunch of people who have been given the social go-ahead to share stories that they wouldn't otherwise have -- while simultaneously vying for social credit from others with regards to how hospitable they say they were.

In other words, i'm not buying the supposed good intentions 'we must warn others' perspective here.

If anything, it seems like group therapy for those that feel scorned by RMS to get together and share war-stories. That's fine -- but let's not paint it like they're adamantly trying to prevent RMS from victimizing someone.

Back in my day it was called 'gossiping', and it was usually poor form.

I've described literally the first comments in the thread, which are what was actually linked here. It seems a little weird to hold an HN comment accountable for every random thing anyone on Twitter said in response to de Icaza.

You were responding to a comment that stated

> that whole thread is a pretty gross social lynch mob

The comments I'm referring to are a part of the whole thread and are obviously not a "gross social lynch mob". "I offered this person a bed for a couple days, they stayed for months, and invited a stranger to live in my house" is a pretty straightforward kernel of useful information.

Now what's the ugliest, awful story about your behavior? Kindly share it publicly along with proof of your actual identity.

This is relevant information for anyone who might consider giving you a job, having a relationship with you, or renting you a place to stay, so it's totally appropriate to air your dirty laundry in a entirely public forum and associate it to your real identity. Thank you.

Hm. When I was 17, I cut things off very poorly with a girl I was interested in. (My real name is associated with this HN account.)

I suppose for fairness we should count only being over age 18, so, I once hit my best friend with a car because I was picking them up from the airport, they were loading luggage, and I took my foot off the brake without realizing it was in reverse instead of park. (They were not injured.)

Do you regularly associate with people for whom having Stallman-level worst behaviors is common?

Also, it's generally common to apologize after doing something bad, to acknowledge that the behavior was mistaken, as a step to forgiveness. I did not apologize to the girl (it seems more harmful than not at this point to reconnect) but I did apologize to the friend immediately. Did Stallman apologize to de Icaza for his behavior?

There's a name for things like "the ugliest, awful story known about your behavior"; they're called "your reputation".

You misquoted me. I didn't write known.

The whole point of my request was to show the absurdity of justifying spreading rumors about someone simply because their bad behavior is known.

A firsthand account is not a rumor.

It's not objective fact either. We don't know Stallman's side of the story.

Besides which, you're dodging my point.

Stallman is free to provide his side of the story. Miguel de Icaza doesn't need Stallman's permission to provide his own story, nor does anyone need anyone's permission to point out that de Icaza told that story.

Stallman isn't obligated to swoop in and give his side to the story everytime someone says something nasty about him. That's a ridiculous standard especially for someone as famous and controversial as he.

Yea, I agree you don't need anyones permission to post this kind of stuff, it is free speech, afterall. I just object to you justifying it as somehow being moral, just because it's relevant information to someone who might interact with him in the future.

This is a public forum, and posting this kind of stuff here is being an asshole. That's my only point.

It's literally a thread about people potentially lending guest bedrooms to Stallman, and a comment from someone who did that.

So? A group of people all getting together to dig out the dirty laundry of someone together, doesn't make your participation any better. I'm not trying to single you out, but there is no "reply all" button.

It used to be possible to reform one's reputation. Now, people with a grudge will spread old stories about you to strangers for as long as you live and make it impossible for you to get back on your feet. Is that a just society?

The guy is an old man who's already been stripped of all positions of influence. Why do you want to make him sleep on the street too? At what point will you believe justice has been served? Attacking the defenseless and powerless is cruelty itself.

You're hyperventilating. I don't want anyone to sleep on the street and very much doubt Stallman will meet that fate. At the same time: Stallman has a reputation as a houseguest, and it is relevant to this branch of the discussion.

You're breaking the site guidelines in multiple ways. Would you please review them and stop doing this? We've had to ask you several times before.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It is cowardly, if he actually did not ask him to leave. But it seems you don't know that, just made the assumption and jumped to the conclusion.

No, I think it's cowardly regardless to spout his grievances at this particular moment. If he did not ask him to leave, that would make it despicable in my eyes.

Even if he did not dare to ask him to leave directly, because he is a weak coward, then this still makes RMS an asshole for not caring about the unwillingnes of his host.

On the other hand, he at least had the courage to sign his name to what he had to say.

> he at least had the courage to sign his name to what he had to say.

Which is neither here nor there, but thanks for playing.

he didn't, really.

Only after the hordes were finishing RMS, he found the "courage" to speak

Yes, because before he was scared of being finished by the hordes of RMS, for citicicing their idol.

So yes, a weak person, but it is still telling, that now so many speak up who did not dare to do so before. Weak and pathetic? Maybe yes. But still telling about RMS.

I do not understand your argument. Criticizing RMS harshly has been a regular past-time for thousands of people in computing since forever, even by close collaborators. It's not that the man had a police force to protect him, but he used to take criticism with dignity. I cannot see how anybody could have ever been afraid of criticizing RMS (unless, say, they were one of the handful of FSF employees, which is not the case).

It is only when RMS has shown some "weakness" by resigning from his two alma maters due to journalistic pressure, that the rats jump in the criticism to finish the job.

Yes, there are many rats and attention whores jumping in and it is truly disgusting.

But FSF definitely also had and has some cult like mentality, with not much tolerance and not much restraint sometimes. So I can understand that people with low self esteem tried not to cause a shitstorm by speaking up.