I think they're referring to this article, which took his quotes entirely out of context since Stallman never said that the victims were willing (quite the opposite)
I believe the parent is saying Stallman was resigned from the role of president of the FSF over the controversy about his private emails (when they were made public).
Cardinal Richelieu. Maybe; origin of the quote is a bit disputed.
In any case, it's a cute sentiment but it's unclear it has any bearing on a world that isn't an authoritarian universe with a power-protected clergy class. Perhaps in terms of modern-day utility, we can interpret it as a warning to always check primary sources, not trust someone else to have accurately or honestly arranged six lines of text from a third party.
(Unfortunately for rms, the primary sources don't actually make him look that good in this situation, since he decided to "um actually" a conversation about rape).
what truth and past actions? seriously I see lots of vague references but no one actually links to anything concrete. I get a very "it is known" vibe here, which is usually baseless.
First hand accounts are evidence. That you dislike or disbelieve them doesn't make them libelous, it just means you don't want to believe firsthand accounts of bad actions by a person you admire.
Pretty sure she was saying that hand-wavey statements like "he's done bad things in the past" are libelous, not people talking about their experiences. Regardless: there's another option here, where you don't dislike or disbelieve anyone, including rms. Just keep that in mind.
It's very difficult for me to square "these are libelous hit pieces" with not disbelieving people when said libelous hit pieces reference firsthand accounts.
Said handwavey statements are also not libelous, at all. Libel is a high bar.
> 2. Richard Stallman has been contributing to a negative environment for women at MIT for over thirty years.
From the original article, contains a number of quotes from witnesses and people who felt uncomfortable or harassed due to Stallman's behavior over a span of ~20 years while he was at MIT.
Then there's this[1], this one where he argued about the re-inclusion of an abortion joke in code because his code is inherently political[2][3], Stallman apparently violating the policies at a conference he attended and going unpunished (which is a common occurrence)[4]. People have been complaining about his casual sexism publicly for decades[5].
And I'll remind you that the "charge" here, insofar that there is one, is that "Stallman behaves in a way unbecoming of a leader of the free software movement and other organizations". There's ample evidence here that he repeatedly and continually refuses to communicate with others in common ways, instead he invents his own language (no really, he has a personal dictionary on his website) and when his counterproductive communication methods cause confusion or pain on the part of others, he is generally unapologetic and unwilling to correct them.
My original claim was simply "firsthand accounts are evidence". Your said there wasn't evidence. I provided firsthand accounts. Multiple ones. You are now apparently claiming that these firsthand accounts are not evidence. This is a simple falsehood. You may disbelieve these accounts, but they are still evidence. And they justify what I said: evidence exists.
Please explain for each example I posted, including those from the original article[1], how it isn't a firsthand account, and why the behavior is acceptable.
I went to the work of providing specific examples, it would be polite for you to specifically and precisely explain why you think they're bad. You have repeatedly avoided giving specific reasons that the examples I provided are acceptable, instead you have claimed that these examples aren't evidence, with no accompanying reason. This is not a good faith interaction by you. It's avoidance of actually addressing the evidence provided. Since it's so bad, addressing it should be quick and easy.
Edit:
> Edit: wow you even reposted the original hit piece.
Of course I did! My statement was that the original article referenced firsthand accounts. That's a true statement. There are attributed quotes. Do you deny the existence of those quotes? Like, they're there in the article.
Please provide some first hand accounts. No one has done so yet. I've seen plenty of second hand rumors etc but no one has put their name to any of them as the originator.
