I think it's clear from the context in what sense you are against RMS. You don't want RMS to continue GNU project leader and representative. RMS wants to continue. You are against RMS.

I'll quote the page since maybe you had trouble reading it: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...

> Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to.

> We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom.

These are not supporters and the page isn't made in support of RMS.

I signed it. I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU. I think the GNU Advisory Committee is better suited to lead things. I believe both the FSF board and the GAC need term limits and I hope they implement them.

Are you a different person from the mattl who recently tweeted

> Support free software.

> Don’t support Stallman.

https://twitter.com/mattl/status/1177355118829854720?s=20

In any case I think it’s clear the letter is against Stallman retaining the leadership role and therefore in a binary supporter/adversary framing, the signers should not be considered “supporters” of RMS.

> I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU.

The second half of that sentence pits you directly against RMS, who has made clear he does not intend to leave his position with GNU.

> I just don't think he should lead GNU

That'd classify as being against RMS. You can argue semantics all you want, but with someone else as I am not interested.

And so you have seized the opportunity. Disgusting.

Well, that's a problem!

You should read and understand what you sign, before you do.