Stallman was 'cancelled' in 2019. He announced his return at FSF yesterday, though he is not the President of FSF anymore. I hope the 'cancel mob' spares him this time.
For the intent of figuring out what he said, he did not say that such-and-such actions are defensible.
Rather than talking in big circles round the issue, it’s better to just look at the truth of the matter. Do you, or do you not believe that saying someone who slept with a twenty year old has committed “sexual assault” could be misleading?
You are twisting the story to fit your own purpose. The girl/woman in question was not 20 and at least Richard Stallman knew this when he wrote his defense based on a technicality.
I didn’t characterise any story. I asked a simple question, to return to the matter in question, rather than side tracking. This is more side tracking.
Do you, or do you not believe that saying someone who slept with a twenty year old has committed “sexual assault” could be misleading?
But this is not the question at all and you are completely side-tracking, so why should I answer a question that has absolutely no relation to the issue at hand?
Neither does a 20 year old feature in this story, nor is anyone even mention “sexual assault”. And last but not least, it isn’t at all a question of what legally might or might not be a certain offense.
You are so far off the point that I am starting to think you are not arguing in good faith :(
This is the question I asked, twice. It’s also the original question asked by Stallman.
I’m not sure how you want to show evidence that the question I’m asking is not “the question”. It’s a question, it’s one I’ve asked, and one you’re apparently incapable of answering.
If this isn’t the point you’re making, then don’t be surprised when other people’s questions - including Stallman’s - are not there to facilitate your points.
Neither does a 20 year old feature in this story,
The story pertains to Stallman precisely because of his initial demand for clarity.
For the intent of figuring out what he said, he did not say that such-and-such actions are defensible.
Rather than talking in big circles round the issue, it’s better to just look at the truth of the matter. Do you, or do you not believe that saying someone who slept with a twenty year old has committed “sexual assault” could be misleading?
You are twisting the story to fit your own purpose. The girl/woman in question was not 20 and at least Richard Stallman knew this when he wrote his defense based on a technicality.
I didn’t characterise any story. I asked a simple question, to return to the matter in question, rather than side tracking. This is more side tracking.
Do you, or do you not believe that saying someone who slept with a twenty year old has committed “sexual assault” could be misleading?
But this is not the question at all and you are completely side-tracking, so why should I answer a question that has absolutely no relation to the issue at hand?
Neither does a 20 year old feature in this story, nor is anyone even mention “sexual assault”. And last but not least, it isn’t at all a question of what legally might or might not be a certain offense.
You are so far off the point that I am starting to think you are not arguing in good faith :(
This is the question I asked, twice. It’s also the original question asked by Stallman.
I’m not sure how you want to show evidence that the question I’m asking is not “the question”. It’s a question, it’s one I’ve asked, and one you’re apparently incapable of answering.
If this isn’t the point you’re making, then don’t be surprised when other people’s questions - including Stallman’s - are not there to facilitate your points.
The story pertains to Stallman precisely because of his initial demand for clarity.