But why?
How do you really imagin 'not-ignoring' something but never mentioning it? Are you going to secretely at home study it in some way bet never telling anyone? In that case you are buildin g a stigma around it.
Are you going to give it a nickname or speak in terms of "the thing we are not supposed to talk about"? Or something similar? In that case you are working against your own case, since you will be talking about it any way but just giving it a different combination
of sounds to name what you are speaking about.
Otherwise how is it supposed to work in practice to not ignore something but never not speak about it? I don't see the point. I don't think you have thought about implications of what you are proposing.
Från: Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org>
Skickat: den 8 januari 2021 18:22
Till: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
Kopia: eliz@gnu.org <eliz@gnu.org>; bugs@gnu.support <bugs@gnu.support>; arthur.miller@live.com <arthur.miller@live.com>; rms@gnu.org <rms@gnu.org>; ulm@gentoo.org <ulm@gentoo.org>; emacs-tangents@gnu.org <emacs-tangents@gnu.org>
Ämne: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el
> If the goal of the GNU project is to eliminate non-free software,
> why
Eliminate it by ignoring it, I take it.
Not mentioning a program isn't the same as ignoring its existance.
You might also want to look into the origins of GNU.
It has been like this since the GNU project began.