4 ms·

> "he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with" There's

> "he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with" There's video. This alleged event occurs at about 6:11 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw I think your words mean the opposite of what RMS actually said. So much for justice. Your words: "so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with." RMS's actual words (speaking to a darkened room where he can't see anyone & conference organisers are having trouble getting their projector working, so he has to improvise to fill the time): "And I always like to be able to see the people I'm talking to but it's so dark in here I can't see you. Now, I mean, I might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you but that's not what we're here for. Uh, so if it's possible to increase the light on the audience please?" That's poorly judged joke/banter: If there's one lesson we're learning from all this, it is avoid jokes that are likely to be misunderstood. I don't doubt that some women got up and left, and were put off contributing. Someone should have had a word with him about how it was received. My guess is RMS would be mortified if he thought people, such as yourself, were misunderstanding his words to that gross extent. Frankly, given the severity of the accusations, what you have called him out for on this occasion looks to me like a brazen outright lie on your part, as evidenced by the video to correct the record.

throwanem 7y ago
Yeah, I actually posted the video you linked, transcoded from the con's DVD of the talk - so it's hardly as if I'm afraid of its content being known. It's a two-parter, by the way, and the Q&A is in part 2. My commentary is timestamped in the description; if you haven't yet seen it, you're really missing out on a great opportunity to call me names. You're welcome, of course, to maintain whatever interpretation you like of the events under discussion. But the video doesn't show the 20 or so women who got up and left immediately after he said that. You've yet to offer a compelling argument for why I, or anyone, should rely on your interpretation rather than theirs.
- 68plus57equals5 7y ago
  You almost got me convinced by your alleging RMS asked organizers "to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with". I thought, whoa, that sounds not good, bad joke, nothing criminal, but it definitely isn't a good look. However the moment I found the video with the actual quote and the extent of your mischaracterization of the situation I reverted back to my former opinion on the whole issue (which is very close to "this is witchhunt"). Nevertheless I feel grateful to you for reinforcing me in the belief one should never ever trust any accusation without a concrete proof. I'm deeply indebted to you for this important lesson.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    As I said to another interlocutor here, you're welcome to your opinion. How finely you need to split the hair to preserve it is no concern of mine. As I also previously mentioned, the video does not show the people who immediately got up and left in response to that remark. It seems I'm not alone, either, in being more concerned about their opinions than about yours. Judging by the content of the statement here under discussion, many of those who have in recent years, by volume of code and effort invested, been the actual leaders of the GNU project, incline to a reading of the situation which rather more resembles mine than yours. I doubt you will find it easy, with intellectually honest arguments, to convince anyone that these people are engaged in a "witchhunt" which, if it were so, would critically endanger the reputation of the project in which they've invested so much. But, again, that's your problem, not mine.
    - hvis 7y ago
      I wouldn't find it too surprising that all of those 20 people left at the mere mention of words "might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you", since the joke was in poor taste. That doesn't necessarily support your interpretation.
      - throwanem 7y ago
        Even had I not seen the effect in action, here and elsewhere, I'd still be willing to take people at their word when they say, as they have and do and will go on doing, that this kind of arrant nonsense does in fact depress their desire to participate in projects whose leaders engage in it, because it evinces a lack of essential respect on the part of those leaders for members of the groups whom those "jokes" target. If you think they are lying about that, or can't be trusted for some other reason, here's your opportunity to explain your reasoning on that.

throwanem 7y ago

Yeah, I actually posted the video you linked, transcoded from the con's DVD of the talk - so it's hardly as if I'm afraid of its content being known. It's a two-parter, by the way, and the Q&A is in part 2. My commentary is timestamped in the description; if you haven't yet seen it, you're really missing out on a great opportunity to call me names. You're welcome, of course, to maintain whatever interpretation you like of the events under discussion. But the video doesn't show the 20 or so women who got up and left immediately after he said that. You've yet to offer a compelling argument for why I, or anyone, should rely on your interpretation rather than theirs.

68plus57equals5 7y ago
You almost got me convinced by your alleging RMS asked organizers "to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with". I thought, whoa, that sounds not good, bad joke, nothing criminal, but it definitely isn't a good look. However the moment I found the video with the actual quote and the extent of your mischaracterization of the situation I reverted back to my former opinion on the whole issue (which is very close to "this is witchhunt"). Nevertheless I feel grateful to you for reinforcing me in the belief one should never ever trust any accusation without a concrete proof. I'm deeply indebted to you for this important lesson.
- throwanem 7y ago
  As I said to another interlocutor here, you're welcome to your opinion. How finely you need to split the hair to preserve it is no concern of mine. As I also previously mentioned, the video does not show the people who immediately got up and left in response to that remark. It seems I'm not alone, either, in being more concerned about their opinions than about yours. Judging by the content of the statement here under discussion, many of those who have in recent years, by volume of code and effort invested, been the actual leaders of the GNU project, incline to a reading of the situation which rather more resembles mine than yours. I doubt you will find it easy, with intellectually honest arguments, to convince anyone that these people are engaged in a "witchhunt" which, if it were so, would critically endanger the reputation of the project in which they've invested so much. But, again, that's your problem, not mine.
  - hvis 7y ago
    I wouldn't find it too surprising that all of those 20 people left at the mere mention of words "might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you", since the joke was in poor taste. That doesn't necessarily support your interpretation.
    - throwanem 7y ago
      Even had I not seen the effect in action, here and elsewhere, I'd still be willing to take people at their word when they say, as they have and do and will go on doing, that this kind of arrant nonsense does in fact depress their desire to participate in projects whose leaders engage in it, because it evinces a lack of essential respect on the part of those leaders for members of the groups whom those "jokes" target. If you think they are lying about that, or can't be trusted for some other reason, here's your opportunity to explain your reasoning on that.