
Dave Winer: Why I stand up for Stallman - guan
http://scripting.com/stories/2011/10/31/whyIStandUpForStallman.html
======
jrockway
I also stand up for Stallman. Yes, people think he is a weird guy. But we are
all weird, and he's weird and has changed the world for the better. I don't
see what there is to hate.

People worry that he might not be the best interface between Free Software and
the rest of the world (because it's hard to relate to him), but who cares? If
you can do a better job, do it. The only thing that's bad for the Free
Software movement is worrying about who the leader is. It's you. Now get back
to work and make us some awesome software.

~~~
armandososa
Why do people from the U.S. use the word "hate" so lightly?

~~~
jrockway
What makes you think I'm from the US?

------
kenjackson
I stand against Stallman. I'm no bully. I don't personally know or insult him.
But I do disagree with his position on software (I agree with some of what he
says, but I think we end up falling in opposing corners nevertheless).

But standing against someone and pointing out why you disagree I think is
quite in the spirit of Stallman himself.

With that said, I don't know the extent of the abuse that Stallman has
received from others, but its not obvious to an outsider what the abuse is.
Some mocking over a rider? You should hear the abuse I've gotten over some of
my haircuts.

I will say that while I disagree with RMS I do think his influence has been
large and positive for most of his career. I don't think he's a particularly
good spokesperson, but he makes up for it in other ways. I've even listed RMS
as one I think is on the short list of potential Turing Award winners
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2305496>).

I stand against Stallman, but I'm glad he's there to stand against.

~~~
rjbond3rd
Not to get bogged down in words, but you are saying, "I stand against
Stallman," but isn't it better to just focus on the ideas? He is a man of
ideas, after all.

If you disagree on the ideas, you could still be friends with the man (and he
is an incredibly nice and friendly guy who treats people better than he gets
treated, that's for sure.)

Just curious: by any chance, are you "standing against Stallman" while
simultaneously using his work? I could not do my job without using Stallman's
work in some form (in many forms in fact).

~~~
cperciva
_If you disagree on the ideas, you could still be friends with the man_

Can you? Is it possible to be friends with someone who says that anyone who
disagrees with his ideas is _evil_?

I'm an atheist, yet I have no problem with being friends with people who are
religious. I do, however, have a problem with being friends with someone who
ends every conversation with "... and you're going to burn in hell for an
eternity". RMS' refusal to accept the possibility that any position other than
his own might have value puts him firmly into that camp of people I don't want
to have anything to do with.

~~~
rjbond3rd
> I don't want to have anything to do with

Gotcha, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but do you use his work? And
if so, are you okay with using his work, but disagreeing with his ideas?

~~~
gbhn
I don't want to speak for anyone, but while Stallman definitely thinks that
using work created from a differing ideological perspective is seriously
problematic, one shouldn't assume the same from people who disagree with him.

~~~
meric
For someone who claimed in a parent comment, "...puts him firmly into that
camp of people I don't want to have anything to do with", I would.

"I put [X] firmly into that camp of people I don't want to have anything to do
with, but I am fine with using [X]'s work for my everyday activities."

------
dustinupdyke
If you agree with Schopenhauer on "All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted
as being self-evident." and if you accept that the space Dave operates is
populated by hackers, entrepreneurs and lots of other people looking for the
next big thing, then his point is particularly poignant:

    
    
      > Okay, you say it's weird. And I say weird is good. People 
        who show originality openly, without fear, are people I 
        admire. And people I stand up for.
    

Well put Dave. I agree.

edit: Fixed grammatical error.

~~~
estel
The way that that quote gets used doesn't make sense to me. Even given that
all truth does pass through those three stages, that doesn't mean that
something passing through the first two stages is especially likely to be ever
accepted as self-evident.

~~~
lyso
Right. They laughed at Einstein... But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

~~~
dustinupdyke
Both were quite successful at doing their own thing.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozo_the_Clown>

------
frou_dh
John Gruber is even more guilty of this.

Parrot / breakfast point and laugh:

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/26/rms>

Linking to a site set up purely to mock Stallman:

[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/27/stallman-
dialogu...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/27/stallman-dialogues)

The latest episode of his podcast, about Stallman, is called "They Had to Burn
the Sheets" (I haven't listened to it, but going by the title I think it's a
safe assumption that it continues the theme):

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/27/the-talk-show-64>

~~~
funkah
Gruber is so openly contemptuous of Stallman that I find it hard to believe
that Winer is focusing on Kottke instead. In the episode of the Talk Show you
linked to, Gruber's co-host Dan Benjamin keeps trying to rein Gruber in from
being unfair to Stallman. He shuts down Gruber from talking about the infamous
foot-eating incident on multiple occasions. And yes, the title is indeed about
Stallman; Gruber repeats some anecdotes he heard about Stallman's hygeine. He
makes Kottke look downright generous.

If you read what Winer is saying with Gruber in mind, it makes sense. But
Kottke's entry strikes me as much more innocuous than Winer is making it out
to be.

~~~
there
maybe, like many of us, winer doesn't pay attention to gruber.

~~~
funkah
In that case he should stop paying attention to Kottke too, problem solved.

~~~
hugh3
I've been reading HN for years, but I honestly have no idea who Kottke,
Gruber, or Winer are.

Who cares about this nth-level gossip about people who like to gossip about
other people?

~~~
mdonahoe
Bloggers.

------
raganwald
I also stand up for Stallman:

<http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-also-stand-up-for-stallman>

~~~
rcade
Regarding your blog entry, I don't think it's instructive to compare the way
adults respond to an extremely blunt spoken person to your child being
bullied. Stallman's an adult who doesn't pull punches -- he described Steve
Jobs as "evil" right after his death. Is it bullying for him to get
counterpunched, or just robust dialogue? I vote door number two.

As for your kid being bullied, you need to be all over that issue as a parent.
No kid should have to endure it as the price for attending school.

~~~
lukeschlather
I have no problem with people counter-punching Stallman on the issues. If you
think that the closed iOS/Apple ecosystem is good and not evil, please, I want
to hear your argument. But I heard very few people making that argument. The
arguments tended to just be character assassination. Stallman lacks social
graces, he doesn't recognize that it's necessary to be polite when someone
dies, therefore his views are automatically irrelevant.

So I do think it's bullying, unless you're going to address the substance of
the argument rather than its tactfulness.

~~~
srdev
I think the argument, with regards to Jobs, was rather that Stallman was
inappropriate on writing his statements so soon after Job's death. Edit: To
clarify, the bulk of the arguments where not against his ideas but rather
directly concerned with his behavior. I don't consider it character
assassination. The counter-argument was that he was correct, which does not
actually excuse the way he stated it. You can say something correct in the
wrong manner.

Now, regarding the rider for speaking engagement, I would agree that the
outright mocking seen there was uncouth.

------
parfe
tl;dr summary

1) I was a popular guy in school. Ridiculously popular.

2) Although I was popular (even if I didn't hang out with the other kids), I
am still a good guy because I hung around the weird kid in school. He still
acted weird, but I was a good guy so I stuck it out.

3) Did I mention he never stopped being weird? Did I mention I was popular
even though I didn't hang out with all the other people?

4) I was popular in high school so I fully expected to be popular on the
Internet. I blazed a path and these people didn't even care, or like me!
_Editors note: Note the lack of introspection. Perhaps they don't like you
despite the path you blazed (or claim to have blazed)?_

5) I released my life's work under the GPL and the internet ganged up on me
for it. Even strangers in real life picked on me. Why aren't I still popular?

6) Kottle highlighted a single odd entry in RMS's rider which made me ill.
I'll defend RMS by saying "YEAH, so he's weird!"

errata: Winer went to a high school which had recess.

~~~
ajross
This is so over the top that I can't decide if it's a deliberate troll or not.
But if you really think this kind of ridicule and lashing out is an
appropriate response to a blog post about _needless ridicule_ then... well, I
don't know. Shame on you I guess. This is just sad.

~~~
jrockway
Not every application of the written word needs to be documenting an event or
opinion. This post isn't a good summary of what Winer wrote. It _is_ ,
however, good reading.

Winer can be a little annoying from time to time. This post harps on that
particular aspect of Winer without saying, "you know, Dave Winer annoys me."
If you read through it, you laugh a bit, and think "yeah, this post sounds
like it's about RMS but it's really about Winer", and that's interesting
insight. parfe could have said exactly that, but why use one line to say what
you literally mean when you can convey that message and entertain at the same
time?

~~~
zem
actually, i was pretty shocked when i read kottke's post. the parrot thing was
supremely reasonable - it wasn't even remotely prima donnaish, despite the
parallels kottke tried to draw. all it said was "i like parrots; if there is
someone around who has a parrot i can visit, that would be nice". he even
emphasised the fact that people should _not_ go out and buy parrots just to
keep him happy, and explained (gently!) exactly why that would be a bad idea.
whichever way i slice it, i can see nothing more in that post than kottke
picking on stallman simply because he's an easy target.

------
dhugiaskmak
_Anyway, much later in life, I was treated like Sam_

I had a hard time taking his post seriously after this. As someone who was the
"weird kid" growing up this sentence is so insulting, and so far past
egotistical, that I'm not even sure there's a word capable of describing it.
It's like someone trying to sympathize with a famine victim by complaining
that they missed lunch yesterday.

------
monochromatic
Did Kottke even read the link about the Van Halen brown M&M thing? Because it
wasn't some crazy whim; it had a perfectly reasonable justification. Saying
that Stallman's parrot thing is "right up there" with the brown M&Ms doesn't
make sense, if you're trying to laugh at Stallman.

~~~
gokhan
Anil Dash, in comments section of Winer's post, makes the same mistake of
having an idea withouth having enough knowledge:

> ... using that power to cow conference organizers and academics into
> submission to an arbitrary set of whims, the same as a rock star refusing to
> eat certain colors of M&Ms ...

[http://scripting.com/stories/2011/10/31/whyIStandUpForStallm...](http://scripting.com/stories/2011/10/31/whyIStandUpForStallman.html#comment-352247635)

~~~
benatkin
There is so much wrong with Anil Dash's long-winded comment. The first thing
he gets wrong is expecting Stallman to handle traveling around for his cause
just as well as others have done. Wrong. The personality traits from which
people find themselves leading a cause are not the same ones which make people
great traveling guests. Another big thing he gets wrong is understating GNU's
role in Free Software Operating Systems. After reading that I'm convinced that
he doesn't understand how important development tools are when creating a new
platform.

FWIW I don't always say "GNU/Linux". I usually say "Linux". I certainly am not
opposed to saying "GNU/Linux", however. I wish more people, Anil included,
understood the pivotal role the GNU toolchain provided, but I don't think
saying "GNU/Linux" is the best way.

------
rcade
Richard Stallman is one of my heroes in tech. He's a deeply fascinating and
amazingly obstinate thinker who should be Walter Isaacson's next book project.

But does he really need anyone's help fending off bullies? A guy who described
Steve Jobs as being guilty of "evil" after his death would eat bullies for
breakfast. If he ate breakfast. Which he doesn't. And don't ask him why.

------
Udo
The glaring mistake that Dave Winer makes here is a misjudgement of RMS'
intentions:

> _I looked at him, and asked him if he seriously was going to do this, in
> front of Stallman. Yeah, he kept at it. That's how pervasive this culture of
> disrespect is. To Stallman's credit, he not only stopped it, but dug in. He
> wanted to understand what was at the root of this._ <

Dave, he didn't defend you because someone was being mean to you. He didn't
jump in because the tone of the discussion was disrespectful. He defended the
GPL, plain and simple. You as a person were entirely unsubstantial to him. RMS
sees the entire world through a very narrow filter. You were just lucky that
your idea was in alignment with that filter at the time. If the roles were
reversed, Richard Stallman would not stand up for you as a person the way you
just did for him. He only stands up for the GPL. I believe he wouldn't even
stand up for himself. Yes, he's _that_ single-minded.

~~~
omouse
He only stands up for the GPL as a means to an end...

------
kevinalexbrown
I'm not sure Stallman needs "standing up for." The Kottke post from Winer had
a quote from Stallman's rider, and that's about it.
<http://kottke.org/11/10/richard-stallmans-rider> .

Some people think Stallman's weird, but I'm certain he's decided his beliefs
and attitudes are worth it. He made that decision on his own, as his own
person, and I'm not sure he needs Winer to come save him from the big bad
bullies.

~~~
blahedo
That's the part that puzzled me. The comment was only that the parrot clause
was "up there with" other extremely specific rider clauses. And the Van Halen
clause is these days pretty widely known as an interesting system hack rather
than mere eccentricity or weirdness. The Kottke post didn't come across to me
as mocking at all, actually. (Unless you see "crazy" as exclusively of
negative valence, I suppose.)

~~~
zem
could you explain to me why you think stallman's parrot clause is crazy, or
even overly specific? all he's saying is it would be _nice_ if there were a
friendly parrot he could see. the specific parts are telling people why they
should _not_ go out of their way to buy a parrot simply to make him happy.

------
teyc
For Dave Winer to stand up for Stallman, requires someone to pick on him and
Stallman not being able to defend himself. I don't see either of it happening.

Stallman wasn't going to alter his behavior because of Kotte, and Kotte
probabably isn't as affectionate with parrots - but that's OK with me.

There is no Pick-On-Stallman movement. He has his beliefs and it presents an
alternate model for software cooperation. For some situation, it clearly
works, while for others, not so much.

Of all the freedoms, the freedom to express an idea is one of the most
important. As long as it is done in a manner that protects the weak. Stallman
simply doesn't qualify. We recognize ad hominem for what it is, and Kotte's
jibe is just that.

~~~
benatkin
Disagree; there have been notable people in the FOSS community calling for a
new leader of a Free Software movement and referencing stuff like this. I
think it was worthwhile for Dave Winer to write this post and state his
opinion that this kind of stuff shouldn't get in the way of Richard Stallman
pursuing his dreams.

~~~
teyc
Why shouldn't the FOSS community, to the extent it supports FSF - not allowed
to have their say about who leads them and who speaks for them? If there are
alternate leaders let them step up and be counted.

Dave Winer can only stand with Stallman. FSF or not, Stallman will continue to
speak his mind, and amen to that.

~~~
benatkin
I took a look at the leadership of the FSF and found that it was much more
well-rounded than I expected.

<http://www.fsf.org/about/board>

I don't know, if three or more of the board members besides FSF thought it
would be best for one of the current board members to be president I wouldn't
be opposed. That may be a few years down the road.

But I don't think Stallman should be replaced just because he's an odd fellow.
If the change happens it should be for better long-term leadership.

------
parfe
From another post of his: _"About open source and whether I have the standing
to discuss it, I've made a huge contribution to open source with the 2004
release of Frontier under the GPL. I was releasing code long before the terms
free software or open source existed. Even so, as you'll see, I don't believe
in the boundaries, I think ideas should freely cross the boundaries, and they
do."_
[http://scripting.com/stories/2008/08/10/howViralIsGpl.html#p...](http://scripting.com/stories/2008/08/10/howViralIsGpl.html#p3)

I had no idea what substantial contribution this guy provided. Turns out his
company, UserLand, eventually GPL'd a content management system called
Frontier <http://frontierkernel.org/>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UserLand_Software#Frontier>

While I personally have not heard of it, the author believes quite strongly in
its importance.

~~~
drumdance
Dave Winer is widely regarded to have invented both RSS and blogging.

~~~
revscat
The first blogger I ever encountered was, of all people, Bruce Campbell. He
was doing regular, personal updates to his website way back around 2000.

The term "blogging" came a good time after this.

~~~
keithpeter
A couple of sources on the history of blogging. Bernstein's reminiscences of
the personalities show that little changes...

<http://tawawa.org/ark/p/jorn-barger-community.html>

<http://www.markbernstein.org/Jul09/Flames.html>

------
scott_s
I was actually heartened by the fact that most of the posts I read on HN about
Stallman's rider had the same reaction I did: hey, all that sounds pretty
reasonable.

------
wyclif
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that any blog post by Dave Winer must
reference how he "blazed a trail" or some variation thereof.

~~~
watmough
This comment contributes nothing to the discussion.

Dave's gone ahead and written a stand-out post that reflects upon bullying in
general, and in tech in particular.

Why not take the reasonable viewpoint that whilst we might not agree with
everything RMS does or says, he deserves enormous respect for dedicating his
life to a quest that has benefited most of us in one way or another.

~~~
wyclif
Actually, I'm kind of burned out on the "bullying" meme. But the _point_ of my
comment had nothing to do with RMS, it had to do with Dave's level of self-
aggrandizement. That some people on HN buy the "I invented RSS" lie is visible
upstream.

~~~
danilocampos
I'm with you. Winer is exhausting because he spends so much time trying to
make sure his reader understands how impressive he is.

It gets dull.

~~~
phillmv
Unlike the circle jerk that goes on in this forum, right?

~~~
phillmv
(Are you instilling an entrepreneurial spirit in your children?)

------
kevinpacheco
I do respect everything I know about Dave Winer, except for one thing, his
greatest perceivable flaw: He is too sensitive. Way too sensitive. He has
blocked dozens of people on Twitter, including Kevin Marks(!). In his post he
used phrases like "makes me feel ill," "here's what really pisses me off," and
"I was so shaken to see." He strikes me as the kind of man around whom you'd
have to walk on eggshells in person. That's not good.

Both he and Stallman have accomplished many great things. They've left (and
continue to leave) their mark on the world. It's not a stretch to say that in
the tech sphere, they are public figures. (Most of us here, I'd wager, don't
even merit a Wikipedia biography). The more well-known you are, the more
people talk about you and up goes the probability that some of it will be
offensive. If you're Bill Gates, you might even take a pie to the face. It
that sort of behavior acceptable? Of course not. But if you're going to put
yourself out there, you need a thick skin. Stiff upper lip, Dave.

------
moeedm
I also stand up for Stallman but not when the temperature is above 72
fahrenheit. I find standing quite difficult.

------
Lagged2Death
I think Winer misunderstands Kottke's feelings about Van Halen.

There's a sentence you didn't think you'd read today. But seriously.

------
mixmastamyk
I don't know anything about the author and found this piece lacking in a lot
of important details. Such as what people are bullying him about? Without
those details the piece read like it was authored by someone with a victim
complex.

Edit: I see below some of the reasons.

------
ojosilva
I just don't like when people resort to pity to get their point across. That's
some cheap rhetoric stunt. And that's exactly what Dave Winer tries here: poor
Sam in high school, poor Winer tortured by them trolls. Don't lower Stallman
there. He's not some poor victim Sam from a broken home. He's a man with his
beliefs who made his life choices. That's not something a lot of people out
there can profess. He's not asking for nobody's mercy. He's no Sam. He's no
winer. He needs no stunts.

------
1point2
There is a lot to read in here - and it all looks like good stuff - but
wouldn't be funny if his (RMS's) warning panned out - time will tell. To those
who say one has choice - to use or not to use - well maybe - I believe that
one of our basic rights in the USA - to vote - to elect who will represent me
at the highest levels - is tabulated using closed source soft/hardware - such
a shame - sometimes there is no choice.

------
jsz0
_And if you disagree, have the self-respect to express it with dignity._

Someone should tell that to Stallman who often proclaims people who disagree
with him are evil.

------
absconditus
"Anyway, much later in life, I was treated like Sam, in the blogging
community. From my point of view, I expected the newcomers to like me, because
I had blazed a trail for them, and wasn't asking for anything in return."

Does Winer ever pass up a chance to promote and feel sorry for himself?

------
sequoia
Someone brings up RMS on a tech forum... <http://i.imgur.com/xblF4.gif> ;)

------
Causification
It is a very common flaw in reasoning that one party assumes that the
opposition disagrees because they are scared or secretly agree. Atheists are
all secretly christians, homophobes are all secretly gay, liberals are scared
of "the truth."

People who mock Stallman for taking his shoe off and eating things he picked
off his foot in the middle of a presentation are not terrified of him
shattering their paradigm. They just think it's gross.

~~~
icebraining
But people who use it as if it somehow disproves his position on the ethics of
software are stupid or dishonest. Simple as that.

~~~
Causification
Except that kottke didn't say anything at all about Stallman's ethics,
position on software, or the FSF. He just said it was ridiculous for him to
put two paragraphs about parrots in his rider. Simple as that.

~~~
gojomo
He didn't say it was 'ridiculous'. He said it was 'crazy and amazing'. Not
quite the same thing; even 'crazy' can be a compliment in some contexts.
("Here's to the crazy ones...")

------
funkah
Kottke called Stallman's rider (the whole thing) "crazy and amazing". Then he
quoted the parrot thing, probably because it tickled his fancy. I don't agree
that that constitutes "ridicule", in Winer's words.

~~~
Fliko
I was disappointed in Kottke with the fact that he didn't know why Van Halen
had requested brown free bowl of M&Ms in his contract. (It was so he would
know if the stage crew read the contract which contained safety info on their
equipment, to help ensure that no one was harmed during the show, as they had
some of the most complicated and dangerous stage equipment at the time)

~~~
ngkabra
It is very likely that Kottke does know about the reasons behind Van Halen's
free bowl of M&M's since the link in his article is to the Snopes page that
exists for the sole purpose of explaining those reasons.

~~~
Fliko
Ahh, didn't even notice that, and I have to admit that Kottke's article didn't
seem very hate mongering.

------
davidhansen
Could someone more knowledgeable about internet community infighting explain
what the hell Winer is talking about when he makes vague reference to being
ostracized, persecuted, etc?

Was there some epic battle that is so well-known that Winer doesn't feel the
need to explain or even give footnotes for?

~~~
jleader
I wasn't involved at the time, but what I've gathered over the years is that
the early history of blogging and rss involved competing standards and
personal and technical rivalries. My understanding is that Winer is an ardent
self-promoter, quite opinionated, and rubs some people strongly the wrong way.
He's created a bunch of cool and interesting stuff, and proudly claims credit
for stuff some people don't think he deserves credit for. I don't really know
who's right and who's wrong, I suspect there's at least a little fault on all
sides.

I think if Winer had explained or given footnotes, it would have distracted
from the point of what I thought was a very powerful essay, but then I agree
with him about Stallman.

~~~
lkrubner
Dave Winer can claim credit only for the 2.0 version of RSS. The earliest
version of RSS was invented by Dan Libby at Netscape. In 2006 I wrote up a
thorough overview of the history of RSS up to that point:

[http://www.teamlalala.com/blog/2006/10/24/rss-has-been-
damag...](http://www.teamlalala.com/blog/2006/10/24/rss-has-been-damage-by-in-
fighting-among-those-who-have-developed-it/)

~~~
sounds
Nevertheless, Winer's point about Stallman is valid and I personally agree
with him.

I don't care who you are, or where you're from. Even if "I disapprove of what
you say, ... I will defend to the death your right to say it" (- Voltaire? no
primary source)

The internet would be a lot smaller and less interesting if we only let
"normal" people in!

------
billpatrianakos
So basically you stand up for Stallman because he reminds you of a kid in high
school who used to get bullied? Not such a great reason. If I like Stallman
I'd stand up for him because I believe in his ideals, respect his work, and
want him to continue doing good. But then I'd remember he isn't doing much
good.

Stallman needs no defending. He's a big boy that leaves himself open to
attack. Public figures always have to deal with that sort of thing but I'm
sure they don't lose any sleep about it.

But whatever, that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people equating
weird, eccentric, odd behavior and different views as automatically good.
Novelty isn't always good. Different for the sake of different isn't always
good. I'm going to wear my pants on my head and you shouldn't make fun of me
because I'm different and eccentric which should translate into you thinking
I'm a genius, right? No! Not at all. Stallman is certainly different and very
possibly completely wrong. It's fun to make fun of his quirks even though we
shouldn't (I'd like to add I never have made fun of him for quirks, only for
actions and ideas) but why are we jumping in to defend this guy because he's
different? There are a ton of people who think differently but we can't be
applauding people for being different as it isn't that hard to do.

------
skeptical
I'm not sure if 'stading up for Stallman' is what I do as I am insignificant
in that context. I certainly agree with him in almost every matter he talks
about. I do not care to explain nor getting into discussions with those who
either disagree with him or think their view is more
sophisticated/moderated/reasonable/whatever.

Stallman has very clear views about the matters he talks about. Personally I
think his contribution to the world is a great inspiration. But I fail to
understand why we would need to stand up for him, those who do not understand
him, or reject to try to view things from his point of view are the ones that
are missing the most.

As for all the critics, eerr... you give credit to whomever you want. I don't
care if every last celebrity 'bullies' him, I'll still give more importance to
what he says BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SAYS.

------
dreww
i guess the advanced high school was so advanced they still had recess...

~~~
ugh
So, uhm, what’s this meme all about? It has been mentioned here twice. What’s
recess got to do with how good a school is? I’m from Germany and I have never
heard anyone suggest that breaks are a bad thing. This seems completely
bizarre to me.

~~~
nknight
"Recess" has rather specific connotations in American English. It is _not_
simply another word for "break". It connotes a supervised, semi-structured
playtime for young children, generally outdoors, in the presence of teachers.

By the time one hits high school (9th grade) in the US, such things do not
occur. You may have free time between classes, but it is not referred to or
treated the same way as the period known as "recess".

------
Uchikoma
OT: Is there a way to remove all my comments from HN? I would like to give up.

~~~
tokenadult
_Is there a way to remove all my comments from HN? I would like to give up._

Don't you see a delete link next to your recent posts? There is a time limit
on how long you can delete or edit your posts, but you should still be within
that limit for your most recent posts, all of which you can find if you look
at the "threads" link at the top of the page when you are logged in.

~~~
Uchikoma
Thanks, I've removed all my recent posts. Is there any way of removing all
posts and all profile data?

~~~
hugh3
Emailing pg and asking nicely seems to be the only solution.

------
hugh3
Some folks miss the point. We only make fun of Stallman in an attempt to
change his behaviour in a way that benefits both him and others. For instance,
rms smells bad. If he could be persuaded to smell _less_ bad, then everybody
would benefit.

Ridicule is a valuable social mechanism for giving negative feedback to those
who behave inappropriately. For those who say "but can't we give this feedback
in a non-hurtful way?", the answer is no, for the same reason that your brain
can't make pain non-painful -- some people are too damn stubborn to listen to
non-painful feedback.

Here is a video of Richard Stallman, in the middle of a talk, eating something
he's just picked off his foot: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ>

~~~
raganwald
Your argument reminds me—painfully—of arguments in favour of physical
bullying. “Hey, a few clouts to the head and he’ll get the idea.”

I don’t hit my children, no matter how stubborn they are.

~~~
terrywilcox
Straw man.

Edit: I'm not saying that the original argument is correct, as it really
isn't, but your response was a straw man.

~~~
hugh3
Indeed. My original comment may have been somewhat over the top, but I _would_
still argue that yes, a bit of ridicule can sometimes do someone good. That's
a very long way from saying anything about violence.

~~~
meric
You are trying to use "a bit of ridicule" to change rms's personal habits,
then saying "That's a very long way from saying anything about violence".

I fail to see how this contributes to anything.

------
miked
Googling:

"dave winer" jerk --> 75,700 "dave winer" ass --> 248,000 "dave winer" asshole
--> 9,440

For some strange reason, I find myself not interested in reading Dave Winer
denouncing others for "bullying", all the while reminding you, _sotto voce_ ,
of how wonderful Dave Winer is.

~~~
neurobashing
There used to be a "Winer number", which was the number of times Winer had
gone apeshit on you, typically in response to an innocuous comment.

------
Tharkun
RMS is not a "weird guy", he's an obnoxious dickhead. If you disagree, you
haven't been in a room with him for longer than 5 minutes. Sure, he's made
very important contributions to FOSS, but -- I invoke Godwin's Law! -- Hitler
made many important contributions as well, but I don't see many people
standing up for him.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, William Faulkner, Van Gogh, JD Salinger, Denzel
Washington. I've heard these guys are all massive assholes. Fortunately, I can
still derive massive entertainment value and/or some form of personal or
professional amelioration from their creativity. Same with Stallman. I use
emacs every day, and GCC and GLIBC is the heart of just about every serious
developer's toolkit.

The man's life is his affair; look to his work. I didn't like Hitler's work or
its underlying philosophy, let alone the man.

