rms@AI.MIT.EDU (06/19/89)
I also
believe that you have lost a great deal of credibility and support with
your demonstrations of fanatics and your obnoxious and irrational statements.
Just to name a few:
- You justified a comparison of your cause with those who protested
(and died) in Tienamen Square.
There can be useful analogies between lesser and greater outrages.
Physicists used to draw useful analogies between electrons and
planets--very disparate in magnitude. I believe I stated my awareness
of the difference in intensity when I made the analogy.
- You proposed violence in the form of destruction of Macintoshes
(give a Mac the axe)
Are you saying that the owner of a computer has no right to take
an axe to it? What is this, confiscation of private property?
Your use of the word "violence" is intended to call up people's
associations with "violence against other people or their property",
but these are inappropriate in the case of one's own property.
Whether this would be a useful piece of public relations is another
matter. Some people say it is not. This is an interesting subject to
discuss, but I don't think info-gcc should bear the brunt of the
discussion.
- You requested that all those who disagreed with you should write
to you. "Even though I know you're wrong, I just want to know how
many of you there are."
Is curiosity an indication of fanaticism?
- You deny some groups their constitutional rights because they are
"agressors" and don't deserve them.
I've already explained why this is not an accurate description of
what I am proposing to do. If you object to having a moderated
gcc newsgroup pass through your machine, you don't have to pass
it through. If you are really mad, you could say so on gnu.flames or
whatever the unmoderated newsgroup is called.
- You so rudely responded to supporters of GNU who are concerned
about the legalities of using GNU. "I won't take you to court.
I can't even afford it."
I don't recall saying this. I did say I opposed nuisance suits, and
that I couldn't even afford them. But most people would not say that
is fanatic.
You suggest that I have lost credibility. Readers of this list may be
interested in deciding whether to consider me credible; they might
even be interested in your opinion on the question; but it is unlikely
they are interested in what you think they think. Please spare us
all.MAC.ROMOS@applelink.apple.com (Ian Hendry) (06/19/89)
In article <8906190141.AA00386@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: > - You requested that all those who disagreed with you should write > to you. "Even though I know you're wrong, I just want to know how > many of you there are." > > Is curiosity an indication of fanaticism? No, curiosity is not an indication of fanaticism, but one feature of fanatics is their absolute certainty that they are correct. It is clear to me that the poster was not talking about your curiosity; he was probably talking about your attitude and certainty -- "I know you're wrong". In my opinion you display many behaviors that are shared by fanatics. You must know that you will be perceived by some people as such. For example, you say you will not be swayed by legal rulings on the subject (you are willing to go to jail). You are so sure of yourself that you are willing to practice you beliefs in direct defiance of the law (if the decision goes against your position). These may well be moral decisions, but they also smack of a fanatic. Fanatic and moral are not mutually exclusive. > Your use of the word "violence" is intended to call up people's > associations with "violence against other people or their property" You might be correct, but do you know the poster well enough to be sure that you also know his intentions? This is, it seems to me you might be wrong, and you do come across to me as a person who is sure he is right. Perhaps this poster was referring to the likelihood that such an act would be done in as public an arena as possible and would be violent. It is almost certain that he is not proposing "confiscation of private property." I saw no call on his part for preventing you from destroying as many Macintoshes as you own. I saw him note that there was a suggestion of violence in your taking an ax to what could be perceived as a surrogate of the Mac's manufacturer. Perhaps you can point out where "confiscation" was mentioned or implied. I cannot see it. > - You justified a comparison of your cause with those who protested > (and died) in Tienamen Square. > > There can be useful analogies between lesser and greater outrages. > Physicists used to draw useful analogies between electrons and > planets--very disparate in magnitude. I believe I stated my awareness > of the difference in intensity when I made the analogy. Physicists think that the differences between a planet and an electron are qualitative not quantitative (as you argued of your analogy). In fact, what (beyond first semester physics) is *similar* between a planet and an electron? I think most people would say that thousands of dead protesters are qualitatively different from a (relatively small) group of programmers' visions of how look-and-feel legal cases ought to be decided. A FSF person suggested that readers should read your arguments carefully because there was a lot in them. I disagree. In my opinion, although provocative, your arguments lack substance. I do not know the original poster. Ian Hendry Disclaimer: Nothing I say reflects anything my employer means. My opinions are mine.
dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) (06/20/89)
In article <2406@internal.Apple.COM> MAC.ROMOS@applelink.apple.com (Ian Hendry) writes: ...but one feature of fanatics is their absolute certainty that they are correct....He was probably talking about your attitude and certainty -- "I know you're wrong". This is, it seems to me you might be wrong, and you do come across to me as a person who is sure he is right. The obsession with "right" versus "wrong" here is inappropriate. I don't think there is any dispute about the facts. Apple *is* trying to gain a monopoly on icon-based user interfaces--that is hardly a matter of debate. Nor is there any serious doubt about whether Apple invented icon-driven user interfaces. Even Apple doesn't claim that it did (though some of its employees seem to believe it did). The question is really one of philosophy: Should Apple be given the backing of the legal system so that it may use the threat of prison to eliminate the competition. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> UUCP: ...!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi Career change search is on -- ask me for my resume
fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) (06/24/89)
In article <7824@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >In article <2406@internal.Apple.COM> MAC.ROMOS@applelink.apple.com (Ian Hendry) >writes: >> ...but one feature of fanatics is their absolute certainty that they >> are correct.... > >I don't think there is any dispute about the facts. Apple *is* trying to >gain a monopoly on icon-based user interfaces--that is hardly a matter >of debate. > Seems this response simply proved the point of the original posting: this guy is absolutely certain he's correct. And yet, he didn't bother to check his facts. Apple is not claiming that NeWS or X or a host of other "icon-based user- interfaces" are a violation of their copyrights. THEY dont look like the Macintosh, while NewWave and Windows 2.03 do. This is what the lawsuit is about. Just because this "fanatic" has overstated the case doesn't make Apple right, though. :-) That is another question. ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" University of Colorado fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)492-8136 or 444-3168
shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) (06/26/89)
In article <9672@boulder.Colorado.EDU> fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) writes: >Apple is not claiming that NeWS or X or a host of other "icon-based >user- interfaces" are a violation of their copyrights. THEY dont look >like the Macintosh, while NewWave and Windows 2.03 do. This is what >the lawsuit is about. Actually, NeWS could be fairly easily reconfigured to imitate the Macintosh... and X could probably too, though with much more work. But what
ken@capone.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (06/26/89)
In article <SHADOW.89Jun26002832@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu> shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: > >Actually, NeWS could be fairly easily reconfigured to imitate the >Macintosh... and X could probably too, though with much more work. >But what a waste it would be. Still, I'm sorta surprised some Apple >employee hasn't tried to Macify NeWS and sue Sun also... Maybe they >can't understand PostScript? ;-) > Well...no Apple employee that I know of has Mac-ified NeWS, but I have seen a NeWS interface that was a substantial clone of the Mac interface. I believe it was done at Sun by someone who liked the Mac interface. From what I understand, it was very easy to do, and it functioned as one would expect... ...ken seefried iii ken@gatech.edu ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ken@gatech.edu masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken
holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (06/27/89)
In article <8906190141.AA00386@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: > > - You proposed violence in the form of destruction of Macintoshes > (give a Mac the axe) > >Are you saying that the owner of a computer has no right to take >an axe to it? What is this, confiscation of private property? Not at all. I'm simply saying that a person who advocates the destruction of kilo-$ computers to prove his dissatisfaction with the company that created them is a fanatic. >Your use of the word "violence" is intended to call up people's >associations with "violence against other people or their property", >but these are inappropriate in the case of one's own property. How do you know what I intended? I quoted you but, you are putting words in my mouth. My intentions are stated in my response above. >Whether this would be a useful piece of public relations is another >matter. Some people say it is not. This is an interesting subject to >discuss, but I don't think info-gcc should bear the brunt of the >discussion. What is interesting is that you instigated this discussion AND you have contributed more to this discussion than any other single person. If you really think it is inappropriate, why don't you set an example for the rest of us and discontinue your postings on the subject. > - You requested that all those who disagreed with you should write > to you. "Even though I know you're wrong, I just want to know how > many of you there are." > >Is curiosity an indication of fanaticism? You are obviously not interested in other people's opinions - that would be curiousity. You want a toll on the number of people with "wrong" opinions - that's fanaticism. >You suggest that I have lost credibility. Readers of this list may be >interested in deciding whether to consider me credible; they might >even be interested in your opinion on the question; but it is unlikely >they are interested in what you think they think. Please spare us >all. They may also be uninterested in your opinion of what you think they are interested in. I was simply stating my opinion which was based on observing other postings. Some were quite explicit and others indicated this implicitly. -Fred ______________________________________________________________________________ | Fred Hollander | | | Computer Science Center | "Ha ha ha ha ha ha, Ah what a day!" | | Texas Instruments, Inc. | -- Joker | | Internet: hollander@ti.com | | | Telnet: 214/995-0696 | The above statements are my own and not | | AppleLink: D1392 | representative of Texas Instruments. | ______________________________________________________________________________