| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
These Seem a Bit Extreme to MeThese Seem a Bit Extreme to MePosted Jan 13, 2010 14:31 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335)In reply to: These Seem a Bit Extreme to Me by Lefty Parent article: Stallman: On selling exceptions to the GPL
>to even discuss matters with anyone who doesn't first get in line with his preferred terminology.
You mean for interviews with journalists who somehow think introducing "conflict" is a necessary ingredient for a good story, or who just plain couldn't be bothered to read up about who they're interviewing ?
I mean, someone contacts RMS and asks him to dedicate a portion of *his* time. Why shouldn't he ask for something in return ?
(Log in to post comments)
These Seem a Bit Extreme to Me Posted Jan 13, 2010 14:37 UTC (Wed) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]
No, I wasn't referring to journalists of any sort. I was referring more to his
refusing to take questions during a question-and-answer following a keynote unless they conformed to his terminology.
Newspeak Posted Jan 13, 2010 14:47 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Richard will not speak to people at all unless they agree to adopt his form of language. That's why I never really try to ask him anything anymore; I'm not willing to let anybody dictate what I can or cannot write afterward. It's not a matter of "introducing a conflict," it's a matter of not letting others set the terms of the discussion.
Newspeak Posted Jan 13, 2010 17:13 UTC (Wed) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]
It seems more than "not letting others set the terms of the discussion", Jon: I
get the sense that it's not even being willing to entertain the notion that others are entitled to their own views of matters, and seeing no other possiblity than that, if someone disagrees with what Richard is sayingno matter how reasoned or thoughtful the groundsit can only be because they've "misunderstood" him.
|
|
||||||||||||