From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA9633973009
 for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:01:47 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org AA9633973009
Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id
 q123-20020a1c43810000b029012c7d852459so2062570wma.0
 for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 00:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=AUQW69y9TaShI0Obu5wFgD4o0PSedns9OkgSpLZVwPo=;
 b=csJuFeaW4TEqGlXac9+z2GtNninefmN11l+DB2NgA4D7+AcUE85/z1Hsw0ysNG9lns
 20x6okLRYEBn3+t2QDUORG+IFkNw2AMc0UIRQpGapmGo7XXLGJ/B3rnc5w7ytJnROZ1X
 sGeu3ZQp/1vtmmc1wSSrxBMYxFyYuLJfcXOMuqymym+gRicnKtZ4pek5B2DM0xRLuLKY
 UER9Iuh5GQXvqkwwOwZZDmTrZcxITMRuhsLmJkoeJ+VBW6Y5Ai32nBIfLCmVbiPnzuMp
 tSdFnagDaTXhD5IuDeJ5Wzy1dF5auXw37J/H4W1+VD/MjvPg3Q+nS8hGr5p+LLrkYyRV
 ATCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Z3mZ3etezXTXju/K7s/HlaWrXTWIkanbxFoiLw3DuqGiU92SQ
 DJP2A2slPFvNgKay+bdqifhaeR/zaDm4HjUgR+I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwszIRIBYmQ1tkm4jUZhasjetOcSK/dwjJDrWQ1u8NfhTf9pilUl07F6014XDVV97D1tE7DkgHD7UuYTfdFE40=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b007:: with SMTP id z7mr1456426wme.14.1618383706786;
 Wed, 14 Apr 2021 00:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALTpEH7Q-hEZzN=SDOJJxSV2=4e3Gx8ihvpseaApdNZW5CS9-g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALTpEH7Q-hEZzN=SDOJJxSV2=4e3Gx8ihvpseaApdNZW5CS9-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:01:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdTEsbHjds7-0TSZPL8kgBO3Hyn0eMJKJ6dtm6drsjdzQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: On rms controversy
To: pawel.kunio@gmail.com
Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29
X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc mailing list <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc>,
 <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc>,
 <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:01:49 -0000

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, 07:50 pawel k. via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> Im multiyear gcc user on many targets. I love the project and wish it all
> the best.
> Im also senior c/cpp and linux sw devel with 20 years of experience.
>
> Im observing an rms controversy from some perspective and here are my
> thoughts:
> -you didnt base attack on real data but allegations. Additionally falsified
> ones.
> -nobody asked rms whether he retracts and indeed he does on some and
> clarify on others.
> -part of fsf is rotten by far left mental virus parasite. See gad saads
> book on the topic.
> -basically rms didnt do what he was alleged he did.
> -nobody gave him way to defend like in legal process.
> -he is back and he should stay.
> -those who attacked him baselessly and thoughtlessly should disappear in
> shame and their names should be on gcc and fsf front pages linked
> shamelist.
> -rms is heavily autistic as some may know and he might not have perfect
> judgmental powers over his words.
> -last but not least all far left snowflakes of you assuming guilt and
> barring one from defence, please f off and f you for now.
> -possibly some of you wanted to steal his project so as per above big f off
> and f you.
>

Very logical argument, thanks for sharing.