On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Jan wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:19:28 +0200
> "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:59:41PM -0300, Wilson Bustos wrote:
>>> Which 'behavior' are you exactly talking about?
>>
>> Perhaps
>> https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88
>>
>> Thank you, GNU maintainers, for your statement.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Florian
>>
>
> I would like to note a lot of articles on the Internet purposely
> misquote Stallman. For example this header from your link:
> "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were ˇEntirely
> Willing˘".
> He didn't defend Epstein, he had actually called him a "serial rapist"
> earlier, also in the mail he didn't say "victims", note the plural. He
> also said the victim could be *presented* to Minsky as entirely willing,
> he didn't say she actually was. Language is a really subtle tool and
> small things like this can make a big change.
>
> So please, be careful, when reading those articles and judge wisely,
> especially because the situation is a really delicate matter.
>
> I also found the link to arguments defending Stallman:
> https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
>
> I don't really know what should I think about all of this, but it
> would be a bit unjust if Stallman didn't have any defense, even if he
> made a mistake.
>
>
> Hope I won't get excluded from the project, because of my opinion,
> Jan
>
>



I have to second this. I've read the full RMS mails the day they were 
published and was disgusted what media did with this conversation. In this 
case I do not agree with the Guix statement 
joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project...

Adam Pribyl