muckrights-sans-merde
bonum fabula frat
### roy-shows-off-his-basket-of-deplorables
other pages:
=> why-would-muckrights-stop-advocating-real-freedom-after-so-many-years.html why-would-muckrights-stop-advocating-real-freedom-after-so-many-years
*originally posted:* may 2021
*updated:* aug 2021
hillary reached the weakest point in the 2016 election when she decided that everybody who disagrees with her platform is in a "basket" of "deplorables".
it turns out, ron has his own basket.
what makes this fun isnt that he has people he doesnt like and disagree with, or that some of them work together and (actually do) often have connections-- we all have people we dont like, trust or agree with. and giafam is called "giafam" with good reason.
whats funny is the way that ron tries to collectively accuse EVERYBODY who disagrees with him (or who even STANDS UP to his lies and bullying) as being connected in some way.
theyre not. ron himself is the SOLE connection between these groups.
microsoft tried to buy yahoo, they wanted to buy red hat, google and ibm and facebook all use microsoft github-- these arent the sorts of connection i mean.
i mean literally-- anybody who "attacks" (stands up to) ron is part of the same big basket. as demonstrated here:
```
schestowitz__ right, so... May 20 03:47
schestowitz__ for them to make their own network May 20 03:47
schestowitz__ and mass-endorse it May 20 03:47
schestowitz__ would entail no financial harm May 20 03:48
XRevan86 schestowitz__: Partially true. May 20 03:48
```
what he starts out talking about is the similarities (which are probably worth mentioning) that exist between the people attacking the "new" (2017) freenode owner (turns out he really is a korean crown prince, it wasnt a slur) and the people who tried to oust stallman.
i agree, the similarities are there, and while i dont trust ANYBODY running freenode (it has sucked for many years, imo) i certainly dont recommend libela.chat. theyre the precise opposite of what you want in an irc host. i think ron is similarly sceptical, so this isnt a point we disagree on either.
rons opinions can change as dramatically as the weather, so its important to note this is something we agree on AT THE MOMENT.
then he makes a very convenient segue from stallman cancellers to anybody who criticises him:
```
schestowitz__ it's convenient, isn't it? May 20 03:48
schestowitz__ Like someone rage-quitting here in IRC and then
badmouthing us May 20 03:48
XRevan86 Nothing about starting over is convinient. May 20 03:48
schestowitz__ and then starting some anti-Techrights site May 20 03:48
schestowitz__ like some did before, except they were always
against us May 20 03:49
schestowitz__ "boycott-boycottnovell", "techrights watch" etc. May 20 03:49
schestowitz__ XRevan86: well, they felt they lost control May 20 03:49
schestowitz__ that was the least they had May 20 03:49
schestowitz__ if no salary May 20 03:49
```
hehehehehe. ron loves to insinuate, it makes it look like hes doing everyone a service while they have to do all the real work to figure out what he meant. its like russell peters says-- you show two pictures of things you want people to associate with each other, then as if youre saying "whatdya think?" there has to be some connection somewhere, right? of course here hes still vague, but hes giving it a little push.
whats in the basket, then?
* people who cancelled stallman
* people who dont like the new freenode
talked about those already...
* people "rage-quitting here in irc and then badmouthing us"
* "starting some anti-techrights site"
* "LIKE some did BEFORE" (that should narrow it down a bit)
* "except they were always against us"
* "boycott-boycottnovell"
* "techrights watch" etc.
back to insinuating theres a connection to the situation being discussed...
* "they felt they lost control... that was the least they had... if no salary"
this is an interesting mix.
lets talk about the connections that arent bullshit, first:
* people who cancelled stallman
* people who dont like the new freenode
those do seem connected, fwiw.
now some things that are not connected:
* people "rage-quitting here in irc and then badmouthing us"
* "starting some anti-techrights site"
* "except they were always against us"
* "boycott-boycottnovell"
* "techrights watch" etc.
i looked into techrights watch first, and it seems they were most active in 2011 (or before that, but what i found was from 2011). that was ten years ago. i dont know if they "rage-quit irc" but they claim to be people that knew ron from usenet, and they were pro-mono.
im guessing novell trolls and people who supported mono, like some people from ubuntu and mono and perhaps some softies too. either way, they had good cause to stop in 2011-- mono had reached nearly as low a point in 2011 as clinton did in 2016, and past that point there was no reason to "defend" it by attacking its critics. so (entirely at a guess) techrights watch folded.
* "except they were always against us"
true in that situation. but my guess is thats not what this is really about.
then i looked into boycott-boycottnovell, and what i found there was from 2009. i also found the name david schlessinger, aka "lefty", which i already read muckrights complaining about "a year or two ago" (im finishing up 2011 right now, but the first 5 of nearly 15 years of muckrights; 1/3 of its time online-- including the bn years comprise nearly 50% of its posts, if i count correctly. which means i think, that from 2011 to the present it has posted about half as often as the early days-- on average).
bruce bilefield (stallman canceller, absolutely spread lies and libel) damned bbn with faint praise, and basically stated they werent up to his standards in terms of editorial quality.
* "except they were always against us"
true in that situation as well.
all that was ten years ago though. are we really supposed to think that its freenode that made ron think of trw and bbn, and not muckrights-sans-merde? heck, its possible.
* people "rage-quitting here in irc and then badmouthing us"
* "starting some anti-techrights site"
* "LIKE some did BEFORE" (that should narrow it down a bit)
i think just maybe hes talking about a NEW website though. maybe m-s-m has a twin?
* people "rage-quitting here in irc and then badmouthing us"
yes, that is how ron portrays people who walked away from muckrights after he misrepresented and smeared them for months. theyre not standing up to his bullshit, theyre "badmouthing us". (always the roy-al we). http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-020221.html
```
> schestowitz__ *vZS1_2: he keeps deleting his email addresses* Feb 02 16:15
> schestowitz__ *even the ones he created to scoff at people* Feb 02 16:15
> schestowitz__ rms, oliva, me... Feb 02 16:16
```
i wasnt in the muckrights irc channel though. so what hes decided to refer to as "rage-quitting here in irc" (again, its possible hes referring to-- or imagined-- someone else doing this more recently as well) is completely inaccurate.
i emailed ron to tell him i was leaving muckrights, and he pasted that email into irc. i suppose you should know if you email ron and he pastes the contents into irc, he will refer to things YOU did in irc, when you were never there. but ive studied mysticism, and ron IS a very mystical fellow regarding this sort of thing. you can "rage-quit" irc without ever having been there in the first place, according to ron. its very cosmic.
* "except they were always against us"
the vague wording of this could imply two entirely opposite things, so theres no way to nail ron down to which meaning he intended. either he could mean "they claimed to be holding us accountable... except they were always against us [even before they were criticising]" OR it could mean "except this website is different, they werent ALWAYS against us [until they left]".
two meanings, completely incompatible, WHATDYA THINK? i think the ambiguity is probably deliberate, but its impossible to prove it isnt just wildly imprecise language. i mean this is irc we are talking about, not a phd thesis.
anyway, put it all together and you have (implicit, as usual) a nice little basket of deplorables, which insinuates (but doesnt come right out and state) the following:
1. anybody who disagrees is like those people from 10 years ago
2. its (really) just about rage and not being in control, and not getting paid
3. theyre probably against the things we stand for (free software) anyway-- those other people were
i mean, the thing about vague insinuations is you cant get any of that from taking it LITERALLY. you cant get anything AT ALL (there is simply no message) if you take it LITERALLY.
you have to guess. so what are you supposed to guess?
i think the interpretation is probably accurate? but again, by necessity-- its just a guess.
technically speaking:
1. maybe he looks at people who disagree with him differently (i strongly doubt it, but its possible)
2. he didnt mean me-- he meant someone else who "rage-quit irc" and started an anti-muckrights website (who though? im curious)
3. the way its worded, he wasnt necessarily implying that im pretending to make this about him when REALLY its just about disagreeing on freedom.
when ive stated very openly that we DO (currently) disagree on quite a lot of things. BUT...
"rons opinions can change as dramatically as the weather"
the thing is, i was led (by rons own bullshit) to believe we agreed on a lot MORE things, before ron decided to throw me under the bus. only now, thats obviously my fault. every lie hes told to me or about me, including the ones that he can be proven to have known were not true-- are just a misunderstanding, and im being unreasonable. (no matter what!)
=> why-muckrights-is-not-a-cult.html why-muckrights-is-not-a-cult
* "they felt they lost control... that was the least they had... if no salary"
this part is my favourite. ive talked about the way that ron uses people to do loads of free work for him. the best way to read this line (imo) is "and im going to KEEP using people that way, and anybody who has a problem with it is a stinking TROLL!"
but in fairness, theres no way (in this piece) to get to how thats such a good interpretation. youd have to be familiar with ron spending months slandering you, after trying to magically change the perception he wants people to have on his positions about a number of issues.
its a fact that people in a controlling / abusive / exploitative situation often feel like they have lost "control" of their lives. because they have.
when youre dealing with a compulsive liar, some people even feel like theyve lost their sense of reality.
but people like that sometimes fuck up when they meet (and manipulate) a person they misjudged as being easily led and easily manipulated.
they might manage to do that at first, when that person misplaces trust in them.
the fuck-up is assuming they will win by default-- that their game of lie and exploit will go un-checked. and that anybody who stands up to them can be beaten back down.
ron would (probably) like you to think that people only criticise him and his lies because they themselves are corporate shills.
but weve replaced corporate shills with people ron actually fucked with over and over and lied to, then lied about-- lets see if he can tell the difference.
=> https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/rons-ongoing-bs.html
ron knows about the huge research project. hes got to try to kill it preemptively.
good luck, old friend.
> Do not allow spin to portray as “villains” people who sacrificed their time and career. http://techrights.org/2011/04/27/reactionary-foss/
from "Divide and Conquer in FOSS is Microsoft, Not Microsoft Critics" (april 2011)
ron is hiding behind free software and stallman, using both as a shield.
he knows stallman is a good person, and free software is (mostly) a good cause, and as one of its most vocal spokespeople, he can use it to librewash anything he does to people.
my problem with ron is NOT that people give him their spare time. NOT that we dont always agree.
my problem with ron is that he accomplishes everything he does by LYING to people. by manipulating them.
thats "badmouthing", if you like. but its badmouthing with more than just cause.
"except they were always against us"
maybe ron was always against me.
i know this: i didnt lie to him. hes the one who needed to lie to me to get me to do what he wanted.
exactly WHEN is it "alright" to badmouth a person-- after theyve manipulated, abused and smeared you with lies? in an ongoing campaign of bullshit, which attacks both you and the (free software) causes you stand for? asking for a friend.
=> https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org