muckrights-sans-merde

 bonum fabula frat

### roys-ongoing-bs other pages: => letter-to-vzs1.html => muckrights-tips.html *originally posted:* jan 2021 *most recent update:* aug 2021 the premise that draws people into roys web is that this is all about freedom and fighting against the big proprietary corporations. if you want to defend stallman, you want to be part of this-- these guys are fighting the good fight. ive carefully, gradually, and yes-- angrily come to the conclusion that this is not about "the good fight" at all. i dont mean free software. i mean muckrights. open source is bait and switch exploitation of cheap labour, and so is what happened to me. whatever it started as, muckrights is now the purview of free softwares answer to gilderoy lockeheart-- a wizarding professor against the dark arts (who doesnt want to fight the dark arts?) whose many tales of heroism cause many a witch to swoon. see him stand next to harry for a photo opportunity-- oh, he must have come to purchase my book! little did he know he would be getting a free copy signed by me! now grab him for a flash of the camera, push him away and get back to selling self-aggrandisement and fame. harry isnt used a metaphor for me personally-- its how he treats everyone he grooms into doing things for him. in reality, the "defence against the dark arts" professor doesnt even know how to handle a classroom full of pixies. he has travelled the world cozying up to wizards, cursing them and stealing their glory under the false pretense of sharing it. the first "wizard" that "gilderoy" borrowed fame from for muckrights was pj from groklaw. but muckrights is no groklaw, because (unless i am very mistaken) pj did not shit on the people who helped her like muckrights does. you are no better off with muckrights than harry was with professor lockeheart. the good news is, you will probably never submit the amount of work to him that i did. thank goodness it was creative commons licensed-- but that only helps with part of it. it was never my intention to start this website. my sole desire with muckrights was to walk away and be left alone. i made more than one impassionated effort to clarify this-- i did far better than simply giving warning. i pleaded with this arsehole to stop. he would stop for a week or so (hence the calendar to start keeping track) and, unprovoked, pull the same shit over and over again. finally, on january 5 i started this website for two reasons-- to continue the work and writing i had already been doing before i associated with muckrights, and to document and protest the abuse i was receiving from this person i spent 2 years contributing various volunteer efforts to. it has only gotten worse, of course. but i do not intend to let some two-bit gaslighting fraud try to silence or control me. when i started this website i was alone and tried to write about the good things (the advantages) of collaborating with this person, as well as tips to help avoid some of the major pitfalls and risks of doing so. => muckrights-tips.html muckrights-tips these tips proved to be of help to another collaborator, who eventually learned (as did i) that even those tips did not go far enough to prevent the sort of exploitation i had encountered. and even by january i had no idea how ugly or persistent this trolling would become. before january 5, all i wanted to do was be left alone. as the smear campaign against me continued in my absence (everything is already in public logs, therefore easy for the public including myself to view) i wanted to reach out to other people, both to complain and to warn them. i was not optimistic enough to assume anybody would listen. however, people still compliment and reference the work i did there to this very day (technically, 2 days ago as of this writing). many a wise person would continue trying to cut their losses and get away and ignore this arsehole. however, ive been fighting against open source (less free software-- i still write and promote free software) for at least a decade now, and unlike this charlatan i am a former fsf member. i realise (spending more than a year suckered into it myself) how good some of his efforts appear. i fight his bullshit with facts, and i no longer have to do this alone. one might wonder, even in scepticism, why someone who pulls off the sort of exploitation im complaining about would continue to try to weasel around the truth once the evidence piles up. if thats your dilemma, you need only look to open source for a much larger example of a similar ploy. open source is fundamentally a scam-- it bites off stallman, then smears him, then claims to be the same thing but better, then it sells you and stallman both out to your corporate enemies. this is the same game but smaller-- take your fight, "share" the credit, push you away, pretend they did half simply because they were there, then smear you and insist you MISS being there to be subjected to this lying and exploitaion. i wish this was an exaggeration, here are the exact words from the other day: > "fig is sort of back, albeit too shy to admit that he wants to be back after insulting a whole bunch of us (RMS and Oliva too) in a totally unwarranted fashion" Mar 26 10:17 the narrative about oliva and me, while pointing to some interesting drama, is something ive addressed repeatedly, factually, at length and in detail. the narrative about rms and me is similarly (and shamelessly) dishonest. this week, the same person who made the above comment republished an article by oliva that i was consulted on-- by oliva. i should note that im perfectly happy with the final version of that article, and i was very happy with the version i saw that was a draft (the final version stays very true to the original, a diff would not take up much of your time). here is the article in question, i highly recommend it: => https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/blogs/lxo/2021-03-28-pursuing-justice-and-freedom.en.html the point being that the story that continues to be woven about me is full of half-truths, twisted facts, fabrications and even projection. if saying that insults his completely disproportionate ego, all the better. suggesting that i MISS having someone take half the credit for work i did myself while being lied to, lied about, abused and exploited-- after doing TWO YEARS of volunteering for this piece of shit-- is an outstandingly pompous insult that reminds me of an arsehole ex-boyfriend saying "she just couldnt wait to come crawling back!" because she had to bother him for 2 weeks to return his keys to her car. some people hide the true depths of their arrogance until youve finally walked out the door. of course i never expected anybody to simply take my word for it. narcissism takes a lot of shortcuts, like the scam artist who asks for change for a 10 and then protests "that was a 20!" with such conviction that someone hands him his own ten back along with the change for it. but one aspect of self-liberation is learning (as much as possible, within reason) how to handle scams and bullshit such as these-- and first you have to know they exist. i realise that stallman has suffered much more of this sort of bullshit in the past year than i have-- the causes of my gripes are a lot smaller than his. i also have far fewer people to defend me than he does. i dont envy him in the least, though he is a great man and continues to be a prominent personal hero. i still intend to stand up against those who have worked to exploit me on a personal level. so, if you remain curious after all that, the following is a timeline that is a work in progress. ### dec 12 http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-121220.html ``` > schestowitz Re: Fwd: Unfettered Freedom Ep. 12 Dec 12 08:00 > schestowitz >> "Microsoft is starting to change my mind a little bit" Dec 12 08:00 > schestowitz >> Dec 12 08:00 > schestowitz >> Bye, DT. Dec 12 08:00 > schestowitz >> Can you give some context? Dec 12 08:02 ``` so as asked, i explain: ``` > schestowitz > Honestly, I lost my excitement when I saw him trash Stallman during Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > cancellation in Sept 2019. I didn't find that video until I'd been Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > watching him for a while, or I probably wouldn't have started watching Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > in the first place. Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > Anybody who can track all the things he has and known all the things Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > he's demonstrated knowing and can still say Microsoft can change his Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > mind a little is joking around. Not as in don't take him seriously-- as Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > in CAN'T take him seriously. Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > But just skip to the 5:00 mark and decide for yourself. This isn't a Dec 12 08:02 > schestowitz > recommendation about your feed, it's just a heads up about my own. I Dec 12 08:02 ``` note how clearly i state that id already had my doubts after i found him trashing stallman during the coup. note that i was explicitly saying "im not telling you what to do with what you follow, only about what i pay attention to". i would get trolled for weeks, simply for saying i wasnt going to bother with his videos anymore. the person who would spend weeks trolling me for this was expressing exactly the same concerns, on exactly the same day, in a different channel later on: http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techbytes-121220.html ``` Techrights-sec By the way, what about DT? He was off to a good start with the first few episozed but is appear Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec *ing like he's manipulated or o=therwise falling for the M$ trap. Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec A lot of people wish to appear reasonable and fear that calling M$ out for Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec being as it is will make them look unreasonable. Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec Once a friend and I discuessed M$ court cases with a third friend and the third one Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec kept refusing to believe the events, we had to keep pointing out that Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec these were already settled in a court of law and not conjecture or hypothetical Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec threats. Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec He may also be projecting his own civility onto M$ even if it is an inappropriate Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec projection and M$ shares none of his values. Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec of civility or lawfulness. Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec or ethics Dec 12 03:08 schestowitz I have asked for clarifications (DT's remarks and context). Meanwhile, he's another risk and liability like Lunduke, can defect at any time for lousy reason. Dec 12 03:08 Techrights-sec Yes, I had taht concern from the beginning, but have been hoping for the best. Dec 12 03:18 Techrights-sec As for the most recent episode, hed did well enough previously that I'll write that one off as a Dec 12 03:18 Techrights-sec flub. However, just that one. Dec 12 03:18 Techrights-sec With Lunduke, he had been working for M$ and there was always the risk of recidivism. Dec 12 03:18 ``` but after trolling me and insinuating things that were completely fabricated about this for weeks, he would have this little double-standard victory lap months later regarding creative commons! "im going to give you untold shit for this, then ultimately do exactly the same": ``` schestowitz__ all of CC? Mar 27 22:42 schestowitz__ or just a few people? Mar 27 22:42 MinceR as an "organization" Mar 27 22:43 schestowitz__ yuck Mar 27 22:43 schestowitz__ bye, cc Mar 27 22:43 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-270321.html this is a pattern that i noticed about him in february-- he wont just criticise perfectly reasonable things, sometimes trolling you or smearing you (and lying) about them-- he will do all that and then state an identical opinion as his own, sometimes even later in the same day. i consider this a monopolisation of opinions-- youre criticised just for having an idea, which he can then take for his own. its a double standard without question, but one of the most gallish ones ive ever seen because it even uses the very same words or structure as the thing he dismissed or gave you shit about. as this page will help document-- among the other things roy has gaslighted his entire community with-- some of the things ive received the most trolling about (to the point where it was used against me in a dishonest email from roy to stallman himself) are things he has done this troll-and-appropriate bullshit with. in microsoft/"open source" business acquisitions, i call this the "scooby-doo maneuver": "an acquisition technique that is a favourite among microsoft execs and writers of scooby-doo episodes, where someone hoping to take over a property first makes it look undesirable (by dressing up as a ghost and scaring people away) so that others don't bid higher, show interest or have competition for the property at all." => a-sceptics-free-software-dictionary.html a-sceptics-free-software-dictionary the difference is that roy does it with your own opinions and phrases, implying that hes the only person allowed to have them, or at least the only one allowed to decide who may have them. ive had at least one other person complain to me about this quirk of his. as it happens, i agree (with the implication) that creative commons should not be supported again. but since thats a reversal of what he said about boycotts earlier this week (mar 27) i dont necessarily expect roy to keep to the same. i will still use their licenses, obviously. ### dec 15 ``` schestowitz > Right, because that was my argument. Look, both you guys can be idiots Dec 15 02:53 schestowitz > if you want to be. I've definitely tried to make a point here, obviously Dec 15 02:53 schestowitz > nobody is interested in one. But the responses are ignorant. Authority Dec 15 02:53 schestowitz > and logic (albeit with superficial data and questionable motive) are on Dec 15 02:53 schestowitz > your sides, if that's good enough for you then be my guest. And if Dec 15 02:53 schestowitz > you're actually wrong, who gives a fuck? Dec 15 02:53 schestowitz (I did not even express an opinion on it!) Dec 15 02:53 MinceR sounded like way overstating the point to me Dec 15 02:54 schestowitz maybe temper Dec 15 02:54 schestowitz I didn't even express an opinion on this subject... at all Dec 15 02:54 schestowitz so surely a misunderstanding or something Dec 15 02:54 ``` ``` schestowitz Re: Hey don't worry about it Dec 15 02:55 schestowitz > I don't know a better way to make my point than to take this fork in the Dec 15 02:55 schestowitz > road. Nobody had to agree, I just didn't know that the response to Dec 15 02:55 schestowitz > first-hand experience was going to be so condescending. Dec 15 02:55 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techbytes-151220.html he knows full well that i was tired of being condescended to. but beyond that id just written an article months earlier about how he had done the same thing (in an article no less) and here he is just sitting there while another regular does it too. it just felt wrong somehow. so thats why this is more about roy than the person i was arguing with-- i was already done with this entire category of bullshit at muckrights. he all knows that, because i explained it in an email later. and he didnt stop this campaign in the least (only doubled down later) after i took the time to explain what of course he already knew. ever since then its been like this. i had to contact vzs1 (i eventually found a way to do so) and ask him to stop mentioning me just to get roy to stop replying with this shit bot-like, every time my name came up. ### dec 16 ``` vZS1 We can try to get fig on an well Dec 16 07:01 vZS1 s/an/as Dec 16 07:01 vZS1 But I'm alright with just 2 Dec 16 07:02 schestowitz fig threw a tantrum over something people said in IRC about nutrition Dec 16 07:02 vZS1 Not really the person to ask about nutrition (me) Dec 16 07:03 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-161220.html ### dec 17 this one was just nice to read after a few days of being trolled ``` vZS1 Lack of computing literacy is also an issue Dec 17 08:11 vZS1 Because people that have computing literacy are less likely to be duped Dec 17 08:11 vZS1 Fig's article touching on computing literacy hit the nail on the head Dec 17 08:12 vZS1 People learning about computing only learn what GIAFAM want. It's designed to dumb people down, reduce competition, and market their ecosystems Dec 17 08:14 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-171220.html ### dec 20 a few days later, one of roys emails where he bullshits the fsf regarding me (he tends to publish emails to and from him, the only reason i know its to the fsf is from conversations he was having about it around the same time in irc): ``` schestowitz Splitting groups apart is a strategy noted in internal documents (Microsoft), and my writings are different from fig's (I disagree with him on many things actually).* His are articles listed under "guest". He threw a tantrum the other day because of something someone said in IRC about nutrition, then deleted his E-mail account. Nothing to do with me... Dec 20 07:37 schestowitz There may be anger management issues... Dec 20 07:37 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techbytes-201220.html right, spend weeks making up shit about people and running a smear campaign about things you know are not true, then act surprised that the target of your campaign is pissed off about it. ### dec 21 (in response to me emailing him to knock this shit off) this one is particularly rich, because whenever he says something like this he turns around in any period from 30 minutes to a week and starts RIGHT back up again. ``` schestowitz *I need to think how to approach this. He's a good person, but taking time to think how to respond would be better. To me, personally, this really came out of nowhere, and not for the first time. IIRC, the first time was, I argued that a BSD licence would be a regression. (Because it's what companies that exploit "free labour" code prefer us to use) Dec 21 18:39 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-211220.html > this really came out of nowhere, and not for the first time lol, as explained in an article of mine that HE PUBLISHED which quoted his from the day before, i was annoyed because he was saying he told me "lots of times" but i "never agreed" (both claims of his were nonsense) that blah blah blah bsd licenses-- but as i explained in the august followup to his article, i wasnt even talking about licenses. and i didnt like that he was being so condescending about something which took something i never said and pretended our positions were wildly different. as noted more than once in this page, theres a self-centred reason he keeps doing this beyond simply trolling. but no matter how much you nail this, he continues to lie about it. yes, this is annoying. repeatedly lying about someone and then suggesting they have "anger management" issues for you doing that (not unlike some prominent attacks on stallman) is pure gaslighting. its the purview of liars and douchebags-- first you do something, then you deny it, then you keep saying someone is crazy for knowing you did it. no amount of evidence, no amount of truth will change it. other people (plural) know that hes smearing me. but this entire campaign is about trying to make things look way different than they did. somehow a rational critique of derek taylor is "rage". it wasnt rage, *i just didnt want to follow a vlogger* who jumped on the cancelstallman smearwagon and who was saying that (unless im mistaken) microsoft was beginning to change his mind. the true story that roy keeps trying to steer people towards "alternative facts" about is that i had grown tired of this two-faced editorial bullshit and wasnt likely to give any more chances to this community. so while mincer WAS being kind of a dick that week and using annoying straw man arguments in a very minor debate about a topic i happen to care more about than he does-- i simply decided it was time to leave. i told roy this-- and yes, i was a little annoyed and (this should come as no surprise to anybody who has read even some of my 100+ articles on his website) i sounded annoyed. i said muckrights was getting to be a bit elitist, but this was a private email i sent to roy, it was his choice to publish its contents. but thats just it-- he publishes (publicly logs) virtually every email he gets. thats his decision. he also makes exceptions whenever he feels like it. i do not have any control over that decision of his, and he acts like he has no control over it, which is laughable because to the best of my knowledge it is entirely a policy of his own making. i just wanted him to stop this bullshit, but it never did. *on dec 21* i sent him an email (even wrote one more article, just to make the point-- but it was an article about how full of shit he is) telling him to knock it off: ``` schestowitz > And right before Christmas, you ungrateful bastard. I can't wait to read Dec 21 18:26 schestowitz > the pedantic back-justification for doing to me exactly what Debian did Dec 21 18:26 schestowitz > to Daniel Pocock. ("No, this is different, because...") Dec 21 18:26 schestowitz > Dec 21 18:26 schestowitz > No, I didn't leave Techrights over a debate about "nutrition", as Roy Dec 21 18:26 schestowitz > has told people on two occasions already. And I know Roy will publish Dec 21 18:26 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-211220.html and i thought he would stop this bullshit by the 22nd. he certainly knows that the story hes telling and repeating and retelling is misleading. ### dec 22 hes tried to paint my position on the fsf as significantly different than his, though as recently as the 22nd (after his campaign of bullshit started) he was saying: > schestowitz the coup is not over yet Dec 22 18:24 > schestowitz now they try to poison his mind (RMS) against us Dec 22 18:25 an opinion of the fsf cant get much closer to my own than that. sure there are differences. but he is making far too much of our differences on the fsf. http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-221220.html at this point roy pretends he still cares. this is me responding to "I need to think how to approach this. He's a good person, but taking time to think how to respond would be better": ``` schestowitz > The point, of course, is that was my intention before-- to walk away, Dec 22 18:03 schestowitz > and leave you alone. But I think you were being dishonest and unfair. Dec 22 18:03 schestowitz > Was it unintentional? That's better. I *still* think it was dishonest Dec 22 18:03 schestowitz > and unfair. Dec 22 18:03 schestowitz > Dec 22 18:03 schestowitz > I intend to be done here. I'd prefer sooner, rather than later. I really Dec 22 18:03 schestowitz > hope that if you also prefer sooner, I've given you enough to go on that Dec 22 18:03 schestowitz > you can simply leave me out of this. That works for me. schestowitz > Dec 22 18:03 schestowitz > Not interested in fighting Techrights, just interested in the door. If Dec 22 18:03 schestowitz > you want to keep me around, give me something I really have to respond to. Dec 22 18:03 ``` ``` schestowitz > Do WTF, like the license says. I don't want to talk about it, I just Dec 22 18:04 schestowitz > want to go. It's been real. In the future if/when I criticise the fucked Dec 22 18:04 schestowitz > up things the FSF does, I will do it somewhere else so you can say "He Dec 22 18:04 schestowitz > doesn't even write guest articles for us anymore. He doesn't even talk Dec 22 18:04 schestowitz > to us anymore". Everybody wins. Dec 22 18:04 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-221220.html ### dec 26 but he never stopped. he even seems to attribute importance: (who IS tr-sec anyway-- is it the famous shawn?) ``` schestowitz anyway, RMS is like Winston in 1984 now trying to appease "Big Brother" for easier life Dec 26 21:00 Techrights-sec2 RMS is a good person. Good people don't usually last as long as he did unattacked. Dec 26 21:02 Techrights-sec2 However appeasement will not work. It will only encourage his attackers fur Dec 26 21:02 ``` i can relate; appeasing roy never helped either. ``` schestowitz whether it works and to what degree? Not known. But figosdev may also be a target. Dec 26 21:02 Techrights-sec2 Yes, figosdev has also spoken publicly about important matters. He will Dec 26 21:06 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-261220.html ### jan 03 why the fuck does this keep coming up? out of topics? ``` schestowitz MinceR: Jan 03 01:49 schestowitz "You have mentioned someone who penned some pieces; earlier this month he totally snapped because someone in IRC had said something about nutrition (which I do not even understand; didn't even know what the acronym meant, so I stayed out of it). How that led to a verbal attack on me (I did not even participate in that IRC smalltalk)... ``` saying he "didnt even participate" is a little disingenuous, he literally facilitated it by manually cutting and pasting. nobody else brought it up nearly as many times as did, he clearly wanted to make as much out of it as he possibly could while feigning impartiality. that was then used as a building block for other disingenuous narratives... ``` I still don't understand. This wasn't the first flippant response of this kind . I listen, I don't Jan 03 01:49 schestowitz censor, and occasionally I offer space in Techrights. I try not to edit (not even insults) because edits are censorship unless it's typos (not changing meaning/emotion). ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-030121.html not changing meaning/emotion-- theres a laugh. the "flippant response" hes referring to is me taking issue with the fact that he wrote in an article that he had told me "lots of times" about something that he had to change the meaning of to even be able to talk down to me about it. when i confronted him, he told me it was based on a "misunderstanding". then when he related it to other people, it was a "flippant reponse" i gave about it. i told him i wasnt following dt anymore, he asked why, i explained, and he changed the meaning/emotion of that as well-- countless times throughout a period of weeks in a deliberate effort to imply something negative, albeit imaginary. "not changing meaning/emotion", my arse. ### jan 04 again (its been almost a month of this shit now) i tell him to knock it off: ``` schestowitz__ > This is a lie, Roy, because I emailed you and told you exactly why I was Jan 04 17:01 schestowitz__ > upset. You continue to lie and tell people it was "something about Jan 04 17:01 schestowitz__ > nutrition" and it had absolutely nothing to do with that, as you know. Jan 04 17:01 schestowitz__ > You are trying to paint me as irrational and random, but you know Jan 04 17:01 schestowitz__ > better. This is betrayal, and dishonest. Jan 04 17:01 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techbytes-040121.html he just gives zero fucks though. ``` schestowitz__ *There's someone who penned some pieces* hosted in Techrights (figosdev; I don't know his first or last name, never saw a photo either); earlier in the month of December *he totally snapped because someone in IRC had said something about nutrition (which I do not even understand; didn't even know what the acronym meant, so I stayed out of it). Jan 04 11:33 ``` still going with the "he totally snapped... over something about nutrition" story. i told him why i left, but hes still insisting on this narrative weeks after it happened. if he says it enough times, itll be like it really happened that way. > schestowitz__ *How that led to a verbal attack on me (I did not even participate in that IRC smalltalk)... I still don't understand*. This wasn't the first flippant response of this kind. I listen, I don't censor, and occasionally I offer space in Techrights. I try not to edit (not even insults) because edits are censorship unless it's typos (not changing meaning/emotion). Jan 04 11:34 its been explained perfectly clearly-- perfectly clearly. but since this is gaslighting, he says "I still don't understand". > schestowitz__ *figosdev no longer writes for us. On many things I agree with him, but it always disturbed me that he urged you to step down* (also some of the things he wrote about the FSF, a sort of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"). Jan 04 11:34 http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-040121.html by march he would be biting off (trying to share credit) for details of the VERY SAME THING that "always disturbed him" and sharing with others the details he conveniently ommitted from this email to stallman (because the details paint a completely different picture than his innuendo and bullshit here). but here is what i said about it on this website in january: > he knows the full context of that, which is detailed in several articles he published. he claims that "it always disturbed me that he urged you to step down" but that was *two years ago* and he never mentioned it-- not when i wrote about it, not at any point from the time i started helping out to the time i left. only when he wanted to appease some of stallmans handlers (and stallman himself, who keeps getting told that critics of the coup are actually critics of his) did he decide to add this (weeks after i had already left, even). > so first it was about "totally flipping out" over "nutrition" and weeks later comes the narrative about me asking stallman to step down, now a month after the fact hes throwing in entirely unrelated things about how i dont think dt is worth following, because hes possibly closer to pro-microsoft (or getting there) and anti-stallman. but [he] phrases *that* as "rage directed at everyone at the same time". like i dont have any cause to be irritated with someone who keeps smearing me and lying. months of lies and gaslighting. incidentally, here is something about asking stallman to step down: http://techrights.org/2020/08/09/different-circumstances/ ``` The coup took most people by surprise, including me. *The one I’d proposed was as much of a rhetorical device as anything. It’s true that I predicted rms being ousted*, though it happened much sooner (and it was much dirtier in its tactics) than I had thought likely. The coup I would have liked would have two primary objectives: 1. Choose / Acclimate a successor for rms (this was a goal of mine) 2. Get the FSF to listen to its members In hindsight, this coup was somewhat pointless because: * "It wasn’t my intention to choose a successor, but rather to let everyone already in charge do so. My list of suggestions included the person (Alex Oliva) who actually stands in place of rms now. It also included some other people on the board. It did NOT include John Sullivan, who I have long said was too middle-of-the-road for a leader, but good for the position he already had." ``` here are some other details roy is leaving out: ``` 1. I would have supported a coup that was Honest, which existed primarily to help the FSF, not primarily to screw over and devastate rms." 2. The only goal regarding rms was to get him to step down (even gradually) as FSF president — not to be silenced as a speaker, not to be removed from GNU, not to resign from the board. The way it was done instead was completely asinine*, unless the goal was to do harm to the FSF and the movement. 3. It would have protected the legacy of the FSF, including that of its founder. ``` so no, i really had better things to do than defend the past two years of advocacy ive done from having my personal history rewritten on muckrights-- even while the actual history is still there. i dont regret WRITING for muckrights, although there are few things in life i am more pissed off about than ever having TRUSTED this shameless, lying son of a bitch. > "Not only is it ancient history, with no bearing on the present, but you had fully explained the context previously. For him to bring this up now is simply a smear" -- Tom there are serious discrepancies, between what actually happened (and what was actually said) and what is being said in place of those, which i have unambiguously brought to roys attention. he completely ignores this and continues on with his campaign. hes smeared me not once but twice to vzs1, who like mincer ive spoken with by email. these emails with vzs1 and mincer incidentally, were not confrontational and were quite cordial-- we were not on bad terms in the least. > schestowitz__ > upset. *You continue to lie and tell people it was "something about Jan 04 17:01 > schestowitz__ > nutrition" and it had absolutely nothing to do with that, as you know. Jan 04 17:01 it was about the fact that he had just personally pasted in what i said, which mincer was replying to in the most douchebag-like way possible (ok, thats an exaggeration. mincer is a clever guy and im sure he could do much worse) and roy just sat there. it was a wonderful signal that it was time for a change. of course he wouldnt just let me leave, he had to troll me for weeks, invent a story that i missed it and then even concoct a narrative that im "sort of back". he seems to think he owns your ideas, your plans, your opinions and your feelings. of course you get a say as well, as long as you agree with whatever crap hes saying this week... http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-040121.html the lie roy keeps telling is that "he totally snapped because someone in IRC had said something about nutrition" -- he knows this is not true. he has said this sort of thing several times and i told him to knock it off, but he just doubled down on it in the face of better (far more accurate) information. the purpose of this misrepresentation is to make me look completely irrational. however, it is both disingenuous, and used to support bigger lies and insinuations that are also contrary to things roy already knows. "someone who penned some pieces hosted in Techrights" completely downplays my involvement, which has also been done several times over the past month. it is true that i did nothing official with them, although that is only half the story. for more than a year i did a great number of things at his request, and some of the articles i wrote were requested-- of course they were still as roy says, "guest articles"-- that would be true for nearly anybody that writes for muckrights other than roy. people who are more closely or officially involved are quite few in number-- nearly all articles are in fact written by roy himself. roy wants to paint me as someone he simply allowed to post there, but again this is disingenuous. when email correspondence became too busy for him to keep up with, i suggested using the wiki instead (which i eventually deleted my own access to-- from my web browser side, not the server of course-- i have no way of accessing the wiki but if roy hasnt deleted my access-- which he should, i cant even use it now and i wouldnt anyway but i no longer have the password nor have i for a few weeks at least) and he started taking things from the wiki and publishing them as articles himself. which is completely alright, it was sort of the point. but the things posted to the wiki were typically not full articles, and the points at which i was most likely to be asked to write was when i had an idea roy liked or when it was a slow week-- again, pageviews and visitor traffic. a month or two ago i counted the articles i wrote-- i believe it was over 100 articles, over the past year or two (2018 to 2020). each of those articles took at least an hour or two, some even took 5 hours. the ones about github involved days and days of research. at the time roy was grateful, but now that ive left hes rewriting what happened here and there. this one is a particular favourite: > it always disturbed me that he urged you to step down (also some of the things he wrote about the FSF, a sort of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater") roy knows (because he published) plenty of things that would probably cast doubt on his "always" feeling that way, but *he never* (in two years) *responded to that* because he knew the details way before now. i would call this one a lie based on that alone. roy is someone who will write about anything on his mind regarding this movement-- anything at all, so how does he go from 2019 to 2021 being "always disturbed" about this but never commenting? to make his feigned concern even more laughable, *since* the time i called for stallman (because stallman is clearly the person he is addressing here) to step down, he has been forced from the position of president as well as the board, although it is painted as him voluntarily stepping down. i have protested both, openly, in articles on muckrights just because the circumstances of him stepping down were completely unjust, as ive said-- and i also noted that he should have never left the board, that he should (at least help) choose a successor and have time to get them acclimated to the role-- AND (in hindsight) it probably would have shielded him from the coup that ended up taking place. it gets better-- despite roy being "always disturbed" (which is bunk anyway) that i asked stallman to step down in late 2018, 9 months prior to him actually stepping down, AFTER he did step down BOTH roy *and a higher-up* at the fsf *suggested i join the board* of the fsf! (i recommended someone i thought was better instead). roy doesnt "edit" or "censor", he simply rewrites history instead. for years i thought otherwise, and this is probably due to the fact that a lot of what he says in general is in fact true. but thats an old trick from political speeches-- say two things that are true, and people will often respond to the next thing you say without questioning it. theres even an old song that plays on this. if he was so "disturbed" that i had asked stallman to step down, a GREAT time to mention it would be in the email where he suggested i apply to the board there! it should also dispel this new notion that im just same rando who he suffered to host articles for. regardless, i have discussed the matter with others to help get an idea of just wtf is going on here. ### jan 13-14 how long has roy known about this website? since about a week after i created it: http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-130121.html ``` schestowitz__ > (what's with the "Ron" thing?!?) Jan 13 17:20 schestowitz__ Ron? I'm not quite following... Jan 13 17:20 schestowitz__ Maybe some mistake somewhere? Where does it say Ron? Jan 13 17:20 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techbytes-140121.html ``` schestowitz >> It's very possible it referred to someone else, though I struggle to Jan 14 23:29 schestowitz >> think who. Jan 14 23:29 schestowitz > Maybe I'll ask figosdev who's this Ron, if I ever get a chance. Jan 14 23:29 schestowitz > Jan 14 23:29 schestowitz > I just tried to send him email earlier today, for other reasons, and Jan 14 23:29 schestowitz > found out the last email address I had for him is no longer active :-( Jan 14 23:29 ``` ``` vZS1_2 Where is that 31k URL list? Jan 13 19:46 schestowitz__ figosdev has a list Jan 13 19:47 ... schestowitz__ rage directed at everyone at the same time Jan 13 19:48 schestowitz__ including distrotube, derek taylor Jan 13 19:48 ``` vzs1 is a cool guy, but roy really wants him to know that im completely irrational. it keeps coming up, even though im just this guy who wrote "some articles" according to roys email exchange with the fsf recently. and it does annoy me that oliva (who also knows enough of the story to know better) is just as blase about this as roy was about mincer, though as far as i know he hasnt dedicated himself to this "cause" like roy has. whats hilarious about suddenly throwing in the part about derek taylor is it hasnt come up even once during this entire fiasco. its just a new twist, from a completely different conversation. "including distrotube, derek taylor" refers more or less to TWO WORDS: "bye, dt". when roy loses faith in a blogger, journalist or apologist, he eventually removes them from his rss feed and no longer bothers with them. i think that makes perfect sense actually, i have my own version of that. the reason i said "bye, dt" was that i had quoted one line of a video taylor did, where he said that microsoft may be beginning to "change his mind" about things. he had earlier been critical, and i figured he was starting to backpedal. as anybody who was curious would do, roy asked me to give more context for the quote (im doing the same thing here) and i did. i pointed out that i could of course be wrong, but for me this ends my interest in following dt at all. he had already joined the brigade against stallman in late 2019 (which i wasnt aware of originally, of or i would have never started following him in the first place) but here he was saying that microsoft was beginning to change his mind a little and i was like "yeah, im done with that." it was already nothing from start to finish, but somehow roy has decided to *triple* down on this business with "rage directed at everyone at the same time... including distrotube, derek taylor". its stunning to watch this sort of fabrication from here. to be honest i keep expecting roy to knock this shit off, but days later or a week later it just happens again. and again. and when i least expect it-- again. i complained about this before christmas, it didnt really stop. finally on the 4th or 5th, id had enough and started this website. this isnt what i wanted to be working on. but i dont help someone out for two fucking years to have him pretend i was never really part of the community, then go talking shit to people we both have spoken with over email, then to go selling me out to the fsf including stallman himself-- just go basically paint a narrative full of contradiction, misdirection and fabrication. i was never pissed off at derek taylor whatsoever. i simply didnt think he was worth following anymore. as to why i was telling this to roy, i first of all thought it was relevant because roy followed him, but also because he started paying attention to taylor around the same time i was trying to introduce roy to him. i dont know if i introduced his videos to roy or if he had already found them. i seem to recall later finding something in the logs that gives the impression that we found him around the same time. but no, i dont have any interest in the work of derek taylor. people are not getting the real story, and i dont know why roy is so insistent on smearing me this way. sometime around when i was writing this section (of this website) he was talking about how i did some tools that automatically remaster distributions. he said he hoped i would come back. this is how you guarantee that wont happen. ``` vZS1_2 *The most laborious part of the OS migration is going to be automating ISO generation. I have a few systems that I run in an "immutable" fashion. Jan 13 13:57 vZS1_2 Debian made this quite streamlined. Jan 13 13:57 schestowitz__ wAIT Jan 13 13:57 schestowitz__ figosdev did that already Jan 13 13:58 schestowitz__ remastering ISOs Jan 13 13:58 schestowitz__ he made tools for it Jan 13 13:58 vZS1_2 I don't use third-party anything for this stuff. Jan 13 13:58 ``` (hours later, same day) ``` schestowitz__ I hope he decided to come back Jan 13 19:47 schestowitz__ he insulted Oliva and myself, sort of... Jan 13 19:48 schestowitz__ rage directed at everyone at the same time Jan 13 19:48 schestowitz__ including distrotube, derek taylor Jan 13 19:48 vZS1_2 That's unfortunate Jan 13 19:48 ``` yeah its bullshit, too. as of january 13, roy had still not stopped his smear campaign. it started out as trying to paint me as irrational for leaving muckrights. roy tries to act like this came out of nowhere, but as ive explained already there is no private channel (anywhere) to talk to him on => muckrights-tips.html so if you want to work out a misunderstanding, hes going to make all the details of it public-- it makes it not worthwhile to confront him on as much, as you know its the same as calling him out in front of other people. he does have a story to justify this, ive always found it to have some merit at least, and it involves events that happened at wikileaks. roy has this idea of radical transparency, but the logs are like cop cams in that they benefit the owner more than the people being recorded. you are probably meant to think that the logs will protect you in some way if roy starts rewriting history. it hasnt stopped him from lying so far. from what ive seen over the past months, roy clearly banks on the (probably accurate) theory that nobody will go back and check the logs. consider that *there are 4 separate logs every day*. consider that when something "juicy" is quoted, which channel (thus which log) the quote is logged in moves around-- it could be the main channel, the one that seems used mostly for technical operations, or the one that seems used primarily for long form quotes. anybody who thinks that a significant number of people are going to bother with all this when he can simply rewrite history with vague accusations is kidding themselves. they are more for his convenience and rhetoric than anything. regardless, there have been times over the past few years when i said nothing about something that was bothering me, because it wasnt worth making it a public concern. instead i assumed, it was better to assume good faith. roy is fond of playing a semantic game where he says muckrights "is not anti-__________" (microsoft, fsf, etc) and i know this game, and perhaps he is wise to play it. but at the same time, if you miss the days of the "fuckmicrosoft" website, muckrights carries on where it left off. roy is arguably anti-corruption, not anti-microsoft. he is anti-corruption, not anti-fsf. and all thats fine, but it comes off as a pretentious affectation when hes trying to conflate me being anti-coup and irrationally anti-everything, when i have just as much justification and can just as easily play the "im not anti-__________" game. it ultimately becomes a double standard, the way he is playing things. "im not anti-fsf, but YOU are." roy was absolutely sucking up to people at the fsf to get access to stallman, of this i am confident. the way he spoke about me was "with a forked tongue" and mixed exaggerations with falsehoods, with here and there, a token defence. no hes just against the coup / hes irrational and threw a tantrum (what the fuck, roy? are you seriously unaware of the thousands of times people have used that sort of attack against rms himself? probably not: http://techrights.org/2020/10/11/osi-and-rms/ -- *so why are you doing this?*) ...then he distances himself by acting like im someone who just stopped by and contributed a few articles which he was suffered to publish. in one month ive been painted as some unknown troll who wrote a "some articles" (more than 100, including at least 2 books, which roy kept updating me on the amount of attention it got-- which you know, was nice to hear)-- as a developer, as a completely irrational person who "threw a tantrum" and as someone who asked stallman to step down before the coup (i did, but roy knows very well thats only half the story) a fact which had "always disturbed him" (absolute bullshit, you had more than two years to mention it to anybody, even once but it didnt come up until you were sucking up to stallmans handlers) to someone he "hope[d] he decided to come back" http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-130121.html hey now, if you want someone to come back, *publicly smearing them for more than a month* is one of the worst ways you could do it. but this is just january-- by late march he will simply be making up the idea that im back. thanks for choosing to do that so close to april, it inspired a nice article for the 1st: => returning-to-muckrights.html returning-to-muckrights and i didnt just start this website (jan 5, less than one week before oliva was ousted), nor did i want to. as i was saying before, my crisis of faith started much earlier, but except for a few "misunderstandings" (the more those pile up in a relationship, personal or professional-- especially when theyre never resolved, the worse the relationship usually is) i was generally content until late august of 2020: http://techrights.org/2020/08/21/last-article/ i was told that was a misunderstanding, though i dont believe that. my concern was the way that he was rewriting history and pretending i was saying things that i wasnt: > "...too polite to mention who said that BSD-type licences were a step back for freedom. That was me. I had been saying this to figosdev several times, but *he never agreed*." the problem with his argument is that it is completely fabricated. i was promoting bsd the operating system, and the fsf actually uses and promotes several projects that are not under copyleft. of course we both know that the fsf promotes and prefers copyleft, in fact the gnu project targets gpl3 or later specifically (to which i reply that the bsd operating system is gpl3 and can be forked into a new gpl3 project, while the linux kernel cannot!) but roy simply wanted to write an article that said "I had been saying this to figosdev several times" like the condescending arsehole that he really is. the part where i "never agreed" is just completely bullshit. our positions on this differ a lot less than he was making them out to be-- as i covered in my reply, which he was of course more or less obliged to publish (i could have published it on my own if he hadnt). he has expanded (not retracted) this campaign more than once-- first the relentless one to try to make me seem irrational for leaving when i was just tired of this dishonest word-twisting bullshit, then later he added the story about how he was always "disturbed" by me asking stallman to step down in late 2018/early 2019 (9 months prior to the sfc smear campaign against him, and ive done nothing but say how evil that is and how unjust it is to oust him, because as roy *fucking well knows* thats not what i was ever trying to do) and now after a complete month of this shit, hes doubling and even tripling down on this story with a completely new twist-- incorporating completely different events that were not even about being angry, pissy or mildly annoyed. http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-130121.html ``` > schestowitz__ for the site as a whole it's a large list Jan 13 19:46 > schestowitz__ about 31,000 URLs Jan 13 19:46 > vZS1_2 Where is that 31k URL list? Jan 13 19:46 > schestowitz__ figosdev has a list Jan 13 19:47 > schestowitz__ which he got by scraping Jan 13 19:47 ``` i dont know if i even have that list anymore, ive tossed out a lot of things i did in regards to that. it was a lot of work and i certainly wont be assisting roy in the future. ``` schestowitz__ but over a year ago Jan 13 19:47 schestowitz__ when he did an indexer of sort for the wiki Jan 13 19:47 ``` until very recently i was hearing that i was just some guy who wrote "some articles" though. i mean i didnt hear that for 2 years, but starting in december it was said several times. ``` schestowitz__ I hope he decided to come back Jan 13 19:47 schestowitz__ he insulted Oliva and myself, sort of... Jan 13 19:48 ``` sort of. i said you were smearing me and twisting things i said, and that you were a backstabber. so yeah, "sort of". ``` schestowitz__ rage directed at everyone at the same time Jan 13 19:48 schestowitz__ including distrotube, derek taylor Jan 13 19:48 vZS1_2 That's unfortunate Jan 13 19:48 ``` rofl... there was no rage at derek taylor. none. this is just doubling and tripling down on this bullshit narrative hes concocted. or to put it in royspeak, "i am not anti-derek-taylor". nor am i anti-roy, im just anti roys-bullshit-smear-campaign and fucking rewriting of history going on. it started on the 12th, and i hoped for it to stop. it happened twice, i wrote to tell him to knock it off, he stopped for a week-- it continued, he stopped for a week, it keeps happening. ### jan 26 when ive emailed him to tell him to knock his crap off, he tends to wait about a week and shut up about it, then he goes right back to it. but (coincidence or otherwise) after someone told him about this website, he knocked it off for two whole weeks. that was as long as he could manage it: http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-260121.html ``` vZS1_2 He seems like a pretty aprroachable person. I got a reply in a few hours. Jan 26 23:57 schestowitz yes, he does email a lot Jan 26 23:57 schestowitz more than me Jan 26 23:57 schestowitz I will check email soon, first time in 2 days Jan 26 23:57 schestowitz if you write to rms maybe tell him you help out with TR and see what he says, he's a reader of the site for over a decade Jan 26 23:58 ``` the subject is the founder of free software, so obviously the next line is going to be about him too. wait for it! ``` schestowitz he and figosdev sort of 'fell out' Jan 26 23:58 schestowitz after the latter had said he should resigned... BEFORE the MIT thing* Jan 26 23:59 vZS1_2 I try not to get involved too much in these things. I only get in touch when I have something to contribute or make a report about something. Jan 26 23:59 ``` cheers, vzs1. anyway, reality-check time: > schestowitz he and figosdev sort of 'fell out' Jan 26 23:58 > schestowitz after the latter had said he should resigned... BEFORE the MIT thing Jan 26 23:59 riiiight. so the first problem with this narrative roy continues to try to build (for fuck knows what reason) is that it presumes stallman and i ever had much of a relationship (formal, associate, friendship, whatever) at all. but ive never claimed that-- in fact when esr claimed stallman was a "friend" after stabbing him in the back, i questioned this-- saying that i think *most* of the people who claim to be his friends are probably not. which isnt to say he doesnt have friends-- i know he does, and i believe at least some are sincere and true. but i never counted myself among them. how can stallman and i have a falling out if we were never really associates to begin with? only roy knows. stallman and i *have* talked over email, though ive talked to lots of people over email. it doesnt mean we know each other well. i know stallman mostly from books. i have some personal experience with him, mixed its true, but i think hes an extremely important and generally *underrated* person-- a hero. not an associate though. it would be fun to brag about, but it wouldnt be true. so if we even *could* fall out, it would be a matter of him refusing to talk to me over email. which hasnt happened. yes its been slower lately, but everyone i know has complained about that-- esr complained about that, roy has (publicly and on record) complained about that *many* times, even listing it as a reason to think he is "in hiding" (or exile) so to speak. its a very common theme these days-- stallman used to be much faster about getting to email (who can blame him?) so did our not-actual-falling-out mean he wouldnt respond to my email? *nope*. but like everybody else most of the time, he takes longer since the coup. okay, so if our falling out doesnt mean we were associates and arent anymore, and it doesnt mean he wont answer my email anymore, just what the hell does it mean? roy wont say, because he prefers innuendo and shit he makes up. heres a fact! the timing of the "falling out" roy has invented most of is from *early 2019* (you could just as easily say late 2018) and ive written more than one article about it-- so roy knows what really happened. as for whether the fsf can trust him to be the "good boy" hes pretending to be, they just need to read the *other three* chat logs. roys "blah blah blah pro-fsf" in the main channel, and if he has real concerns hes lately taken those to #boycottnovell or -social or #techbytes instead. where he voices all the same concerns that i do, more or less. ``` schestowitz anyway, RMS is like Winston in 1984 now trying to appease "Big Brother" for easier life Dec 26 21:00 Techrights-sec2 RMS is a good person. Good people don't usually last as long as he did unattacked. Dec 26 21:02 Techrights-sec2 However appeasement will not work. It will only encourage his attackers fur Dec 26 21:02 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-261220.html heres how much this is bullshit-- the timeline goes like this: me asking stallman to step down: late 2018 / early 2019 (nobody cared-- nobody was expected to care) then supposedly we had a "falling out" after that (even though we were never closely associated, so falling out from what?) then in late (sept) 2019 a bunch of arseholes twisted a bunch of things stallman said (complete misquotes about epstein etc) which were in the media-- the latest news from muckrights appears to tie everything to bkuhn and sfc and corporate (who ive called traitors ever since it happened, but whatever). ive condemned all this and applauded dyne.org for supporting stallman during the coup. (they were the only formal organisation to officially and publicly support him that i know of). then he stepped down. by *early 2020* oliva and i are planning to meet stallman for lunch, which of course fell through after a week or two of planning, for one due to libreplanet switching to being a virtual event. oliva was still trying to arrange a video meeting, though really for me meeting in person was the point-- id already talked to stallman online before. > schestowitz he and figosdev sort of 'fell out' Jan 26 23:58 ### jan 27 as with the thing about dt we are going back to pretty much anything i ever said about anything, and saying i was "upset" about it-- wth? the lie just keeps growing and growing and accumulating bullshit-- ``` > schestowitz RMS uses auto-reply Jan 27 12:01 > schestowitz but because his replies can be as long a week in delays Jan 27 12:01 > schestowitz and he doesn't want people to assume he ignores them Jan 27 12:01 > schestowitz figosdev used to get a tad upset if I didn't read his emails on the same day Jan 27 12:01 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-270121.html so now anything i ever gave *any sort of feedback on at all* is something i used to get "a tad upset" about. more trolling. he used to check email more than once a day. then he went to once a day-- alright. then he experimented with every two days. i pointed out that this might not be so practical because something could be time sensitive. *he even agreed*. now its framed as i was "a tad upset"-- why? because thats just his thing, now. just as an example of how this is a real issue, he (accidentally, innocently) misgendered a contributor recently. at least they werent trans (misgendering someone who is trans can be a lot more painful than accidentally misgendering someone who is cis, though im sure that some cis women get tired of having people assume their gender is male too) fortunately, the author got in touch and it was quickly fixed. *no problem*. the only difference is, i dont go to the irc. guess what? not all of the contributors to muckrights ever go to irc. my point was simply that checking email only every two days was a bit impractical for things like error corrections (and submissions that could have a more powerful effect if posted sooner). the turnaround on posts is fast, *once the post is received*. so the real thing that slows down posting isnt posting-- its email. dont point this out though, or it might turn into fodder for some campaign to make you out to be entirely unreasonable-- even over matters (dt, this very email example) that roy actually agreed with at the time. yet again, the claim being made here is ridiculous and part of an ongoing smear campaign: first it was about a single "tantrum", which was about me telling the guy i didnt want to contribute anymore. i stopped trusting him in august, i was still having problems with him in december, i told him off and wanted to leave-- then it was about revising history about late 2018/early 2019. new lies and smears and revisions get added to the repertoire, then they just keep coming up on a whim (usually while talking to the same one person, albeit publicly, who shows no interest in this). this is my thanks for 2 years of doing advocacy with this piece of shit. each instance or fabrication is a complete reframing of what actually happened-- the "tantrum" (me leaving the website), the stallman thing (roy knows exactly what happened, people who also were privy know its a smear), the completely hypocritical (and fabricated) nonsense about dt-- now hes saying i was upset at rms (when? *two years ago?* i feel really bad for rms) and suddenly anything i ever had an opinion or input about is going to be turned into "he was upset" about it? make no mistake, im definitely pissed off about this smear campaign-- *six weeks running*! (or it was, by late january) but considering that the guy runs a *muckraking website* dont ever give him a personal opinion about practical concerns or anything else, because it could be twisted around later for who knows how many weeks at a time, to every person who will listen to this shit (or even if they wont). apart from this lie being a new one added to the pile, id already read (and quoted) part of this log. this is further down, so thats twice in one day. i guess *my advice to roy is to follow his own creedo* posted over the weekend: > schestowitz__ *DaemonFC[m]: let's focus on tech, not personal tales* Jan 24 00:55 good idea-- you know, as an alternative to constantly dredging me up whenever some random topic like *autoresponders* prompts you to do so. when will roy pull this shit again? its anybodys guess, probably the next time that vzs1 has anything to say about anything that roy can use as an excuse to say:" ``` > vZS1_2 It's a shame fig isn't around anymore. His posts on programming education were good. Jan 27 00:03 > schestowitz *he got very upset at everybody* Jan 27 00:04 > schestowitz *oliva, rms, me, derek taylor* Jan 27 00:04 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-270121.html i actually talked to oliva just yesterday. [it was "yesterday" when this paragraph was written.] i dont even understand why roy thinks im upset at rms, its closer to a fabrication. im upset *about* rms, i dont know if i would say *at* rms, nor do i think roy has an actual reason to believe his statement is true, its just his ongoing narrative that im pissed off at everybody. "me"-- youre damned right im upset at you, you keep lying to people. i told you to knock it off an entire month ago and you said "i have to think about how to handle this, hes a good person"-- but a week later you did it again, then again. then again. so "how to handle this" is to wait a week then pull the same crap. nice. i think youre a complete and utter douchebag-- theres no justification for what youre doing. it also shows your *complete* lack of sincere gratitude for anybody who helps you or your website. you *use* people. they *should* be pissed. then when they try to walk away and leave you alone, you smear them for weeks. did you think i would just let that slide no matter how far you took it? i also keep track of when you add to the lie. you didnt say "derek taylor" at first, you added that later. you didnt say i was very upset at rms (this isnt true) until today-- did you get that from reading this website? i know youre aware of it. youre wrong, im not upset at rms at all. i feel bad for him. either way its nothing youre being honest about. "derek taylor"-- its funny, i said i wasnt going to watch his videos anymore, you asked me why, i calmly explained, now you tell people it was "rage" and im "very upset" with him (a complete invention) when on the same day, in another channel you were having a discussion about the exact same concerns i had, only now you admitted you shared them. how about that? http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techbytes-121220.html so we had the same concerns, which you asked me to explain and i did, and thats "rage" and being "very upset?" which youre kind enough to leave all context out of while you lie about it. stay classy, arsehole. ### feb 02 ``` > vZS1_2 schestowitz__: Could you please send me an email address I could use to contact figosdev? Feb 02 16:08 > vZS1_2 I tried sending an email to the one he contacted me by but I think that's a burner address. It doesn't exist anymore. Feb 02 16:08 > 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 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-020221.html i didnt create any email addresses to "scoff" at people. i created an email address to tell roy to stop lying to people about me. his reply was that im a "good person" and he "needs to think how to address this"-- i told him he didnt need to address it, just stop with the unnecessary and inaccurate commentary thats barely connected to any topic. (much like he tells dfc to stop on a regular basis these days). "scoff" as a definition of "telling someone to knock off the dishonest crap" is obviously one i havent heard of. note for comparison that this comment is actually scoffing, but i didnt create an email address just to say it. i didnt scoff at rms either-- thats another total fabrication on roys part. ### february 02 - late march: the great scoffing i didnt want to let a good idea go to waste though, so when roy reported about the raspberry pi, i was intrigued. i had already gotten back in touch with vsz1 again, and we talked about it. i decided i would write an article for ewwfs (not muckrights) about how i would never recommend someone purchase a pi. i used to own a pi (until february 2021) but i never did purchase one and i dont ever intend to. i worked on installing netbsd as long as i had one, but when that didnt go as hoped i decided to uninstall some of the components... i no longer own a raspberry pi. gavin and i talked about a paper for installing netbsd-- note im not taking credit for the idea for the paper, and he submitted it to muckrights. you can read about what happened here: => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/an-experience-with-creative-commons.html some... things... happened which nobody was pleased with, and this was the beginning of "the great scoffing"-- note that i coined this "great scoffing" while updating this page in late march; after adding the quotes from march 26th and reviewing the ridiculous lines from early february. to be (slightly) more specific, february was when a pattern was noticed of roy dismissing ideas before appropriating them. i have described that already on this page with the line about kat walsh as an example. another example is the whole derek taylor thing. this page does not yet cover every example, but this phenomenon was the last straw and only nastiness could follow from there. indeed, nastiness did follow. after about three months of being fucked with again and again, i started penning articles that told how i REALLY feel. i refer to this here as "the great scoffing" but at the time i called it "the war on bullshit": => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/the-war-on-bullshit.html the-war-on-bullshit the first big piece warning people of what was happening was "roy the butcher" (originally, "ron" the butcher) => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/roy-the-butcher.html roy-the-butcher gavin was quite explicit about his misgivings in that one. roy the butcher lead to gavins own "an experience with creative commons" paper. the war on bullshit consisted initially of two ideas for articles. roy the butcher is still not entirely cleaned up and perfected i think, but its basically alright. the other idea was "a muckrights carol", where ebenezer scroogeowitz is visted by "shawn" who isnt dead but merely playing with alpha settings. he is then visited by three "spirits" including stallman, oliva and a german software developer who is never actually named. => a-muckrights-carol.html a-muckrights-carol granted i probably wouldnt have if id know stallman was going to come back in a day or two, or whatever. i wrote a couple articles about that, then after reading loads of bullshit in irc i decided it was time to contact someone besides vzs1. i also penned this: => for-half-the-story-muckrights-is-the-place.html for-half-the-story-muckrights-is-the-place the person i contacted decided to paste my new article into the irc channel, which i thought was very funny but i didnt put them up to it. and the above article quotes this lovely bullshit response as well: ``` schestowitz I know he's still around Mar 24 22:18 schestowitz but he broke up with everyone Mar 24 22:18 schestowitz and then he sort of wants to come back Mar 24 22:18 schestowitz but it would refute the breakup wish Mar 24 22:18 ``` what this narcissistic fuckwich refers to as a "breakup wish" was me leaving a website id contributed to for years because the owner is an insufferable lying prick who would go on to spend more than a month smearing me WITHOUT provocation, just because i got tired of his shit and LEFT. this is his NEW lie, one of the biggest, but he had to do something i guess after i talked to oliva and shared an article with someone who then shared it with him. its interesting to note that while in december i was someone who merely "wrote some articles", by january he says he had wished id come back, and by march hes expressing someone elses "wish" to come back on their behalf, and within days of that he is announcing my fictitious return (which is his own concoction, and i finally lampoon it days later on april 1). im not actually there, indeed just months ago he was insinuating i was never really part of the website in the first place-- but apparently my "return" occurred between mid-to-late march, based on the logs where he insinuates im doing anything for him at this point but wont give details, because there arent any. for clarification: when i left in 2020, i stopped emailing him (except to tell him once or twice to stop trolling me after i left) and i said i wouldnt write any more articles for him. with the exception of telling him to stop his smear campaign (back in january) and to stop rewriting history, i still havent emailed him and i still havent written him any articles, nor do i intend to. to back up this charade of his, i presume at some point he will republish one of my articles and claim it was a "guest" submission or something like that. but i dont submit my articles to him anymore. roy has yet to clarify what he means by me being "sort of back" but a good rule of thumb is whenever roy says "sort of" anything, its "sort of" bullshit. if roy republishes any of my work (i cant stop him, the license lets anybody do that) he needs to do two things-- link back to the original and NOT claim that i endorse his usage. since he always claims endorsement by default (and often uses "we" to imply collaboration where there isnt any) i have to say that i have higher expectations for license compliance in this situation than i do for most people-- you really need to that link to the original when people twist your words around like he does. note that no license can stop people from misrepresenting or misquoting you, including no-derivs licenses. stallman seems to love those and they certainly havent stopped the media or countless others from misquoting and twisting his words. i specifically chose by-sa for this website because it requires roy to say where he actually got anything he chose to republish. and just to be 100% clear on this-- none of the articles on ewwfs were written for muckrights. id really rather he didnt, but the license (which is non-revokable) does allow it. other people in general are welcome and i do not have a reputation for being a stickler on this. in fact i more typically license my writing as cc0, which is the most anything-goes license/waiver there is. i specifically chose a license, all the way back in january that is RESISTANT to roy saying i wrote any of these articles for him. i didnt figure he would fuck around with them, though i still chose a license specifically to resist such fucking around. i do not ENDORSE anything he does with ANYTHING i post here. if there is any doubt, try this page: => muckrights-tips.html muckrights-tips if roy REALLY wants to tell people i intend to write something new for him, i would be happy to consult with some people about the possibility of an article expressing what a gaslighting, two-faced, lying exploitative shit he is. it would probably borrow a lot from THIS page. then maybe he could put that up on the muckrights front page as a warning to any suckers who might consider ignoring the the (insufficient) list of tips i wrote in january. ### mar 26 ``` schestowitz kaniini wants to remove the signature now. PROGRESS! Anyway, unlike Lunduke I don't want to pour gasoline. He reached the same conclusion while making his latest video (regarding Red Hat): focus on POSITIVES. Mar 26 09:39 [he then focuses on positives... for 37 minutes and 42 seconds] schestowitz RMS and Oliva speak to me this week, and the general consensus is that we'll be fine. I'm starting to doubt a video on Sunday (long rebuttal) would even be constructive at all as it brings back a topic. Mar 26 09:40 Techrights-sec Yes, there is a chance to move forward at this point. Again, as I have mentioned Mar 26 10:16 Techrights-sec over the yrars, as much as RMS is hoped to be with us for a long time, Mar 26 10:16 Techrights-sec his priority should be on finding and establishing a strong spiritual successor Mar 26 10:16 Techrights-sec figosdev brings that up in the long post, too. Mar 26 10:16 schestowitz fig is sort of back, albeit too shy to admit that he wants to be back after insulting a whole bunch of us (RMS and Oliva too) in a totally unwarranted fashion Mar 26 10:17 Techrights-sec well I'm glad he's back Mar 26 10:37 schestowitz too proud though to apologise to us Mar 26 10:37 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-260321.html its pretty hilarious that he thinks im the shy one, when he has known about this website since mid-january and has spent months pretending it doesnt exist. but what am i supposed to apologise to him for? "gee wally, i sure am sorry i bumped MY FACE into your FIST like that! no hard feelings, i hope!" i spent years doing free shit for him and he spent months acting like the prick of the world. if anybody is owed an apology... then about one hour later he trots off to the main channel to take partial credit (being the sole author, i get the arse end of it) for things he had nothing to do with at all: ``` schestowitz what did Kat Walsh do to them?!!??! Mar 26 11:49 schestowitz She's awesome Mar 26 11:49 schestowitz we suggested her as successor to RMS Mar 26 11:49 ``` http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-020221.html NOPE! that was me. ages ago, i suggested oliva, denis roio, kat walsh and ben mako hill as successors. incredibly, this was mentioned in a more recent article where i explained asking stallman to step down years ago (voluntarily, choosing AND helping acclimate a successor, which roy claimed to stallman that he was "never comfortable with" and yet-- he takes credit for naming kat walsh which is something he neither wrote nor had input on). show me where he ever wrote about kat walsh in this context before march 26th 2021. sadly, both kat and mako have turned traitor. so he smears me with half-truths, completely fabricates others, and then takes credit for part of a statement i made that he already smeared me for, that he had zero input on. there is no "we" on this at all. this is what can happen when you write articles for him-- he grabs hold of what he likes, then uses bullshit to push you away from it. i have never asked him to publish *a single* retraction. what i asked him to do, *repeatedly* is to stop rewriting history and smearing me to people we are both acquainted with, including but hardly limited to richard stallman. his sympathy is fake, his promises are fake, his compliments are fake. correct me if this is wrong: groklaw was not a rumour mill, and pj did not treat people who helped her this way. this website was never intended to be only about muckrights. theres a lot of things it can talk about with regards to whats left of this movement. at this point the movement is so upside down, so backwards (due to sabotage) that im more inclined to call it "free computing" or simply "free culture"-- this is a likely course of action. no matter how much work ive done with regards to "free software", its a movement that is mostly rewarding the corporate takeover and often shitting on anybody who actually cares. but i guess its up to roy when im allowed to walk away from this. the history of the movement is the key to its future-- whether its something else or whether it actually turns around (which does look very doubtful). ive made it perfectly clear that if people do attempt a reboot, under the same name or a different one, that it cant be a bait-and-switch scam like "open source". weve been debating that "and what to do about it" since 2015 or earlier. but ive been advocating free software longer than that. i dont need roy trying to fuck me over like this, taking shit out of context in the same way as was done to stallman. (no, of course its not on the same scale). "When a legal team’s worth of disclaimers and qualifiers doesn’t stop people from misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) you, it’s time to leave." http://techrights.org/2020/08/21/last-article/ > "I hope he decided to come back" yeah, right... who needs that when he can pretend? > "fig is sort of back, albeit too shy to admit that he wants to be back after insulting a whole bunch of us (RMS and Oliva too) in a totally unwarranted fashion" you know whats a GREAT litmus test for bullshit claims like the one about how i want to be back? if hes so sure, why doesnt he explain WHY i do-- is it the lying, the misrepresentation of things ive said, the gaslighting and manipulation? i miss being his serf who puts in loads of effort at his request just to have him take the credit? WHAT is it that he thinks i miss? kiplings "six honest serving men" will blow such contrived, self-serving BULLSHIT straight to hell every fucking time! a little more FACT with your innuendo roy, if you can manage it. ### april 01 in response to roy pretending that ive come back, i do an april fools post about returning: => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/returning-to-muckrights.html also this month (though not on the first) i introduce a new page: => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/bullshit-of-the-week.html its a place where once a week i can take the silliest most ridiculous (or terrible) bullshit ive found that week and respond to it without taking the time to do a full article-- obviously anything i have done a full article about can probably be skipped, so this is really just a fun way to address and refute additional bullshit. ### april 05 dont be fooled by roys narcissistic hoovering: http://techrights.org/2021/04/05/software-freedom-misconceptions/ this video where he says nice things is just as full of half-truths, innuendo and falsehoods. it perpetuates a lie about stallman and me, it perpetuates the double standard bullshit about derek taylor (which hes said half a dozen times and knew it was false every. single. time. but now he says he "wont mention the name" because that changes that its a lie hes made so many times already) and hes going to put his own spin on things ive posted before. this really isnt an olive branch at all, its just friendlier-faced lying. the cherry on top is he says im still blogging (hi, arsehole) and "i dont remember the address" but he totally does-- all he has to do to find this website is go to his own page where he published gavins paper-- oh no, that wont work, because he censored the website address from that paper, as covered in roy-the-butcher and gavins own an-experience-with-creative-commons: => roy-the-butcher.html roy-the-butcher => an-experience-with-creative-commons.html an-experience-with-creative-commons at times like this it really needs to be said, roy isnt just lying ABOUT me-- hes lying TO every single member of his audience, over and over and over again. roys words are not mistakes-- they are deliberate lies, half-truths, and bullshit. when roy throws some compliments in with his lies, note the advice i wrote to ALL muckrights contributors all the way back in january, when this ongoing campaign of bullshit was much newer: > 1. praise is fickle; ignore it completely, just say "thanks" or whatever => muckrights-tips.html muckrights-tips your compliments mean nothing to me-- everything you say is in the context of you lying a minute ago or lying a minute later. tainting even the occasional truth with your bullshit is no different than a politicians speech. and you absolutely know the address of this website, but you also know what people will find if they visit. in the video you show an outdated page that i made on your wiki, while a (slightly) updated version is available on this new website. but by all means, use my name and my writing as a platform on which to build up the lies ive documented here-- and continue to hide the truth from your viewers. im sure they appreciate the way you take them all as fools. i should know, i was familiar with your website for years before i wrote for you. > "we need more people in the fight for free software to be honest" im fighting alright from here, but we know youre not going to link to a website that documents everything youve done to someone who write over 100 articles for you. and youre not honest. > "its better to have more people on your side than against you" lol! people who pretend to be on your side are hardly more useful than the stallman-backstabbers in the gnu project or the senate to julius caesar. not that im a caesar fan or anything, but it would be a stretch to say they did him a real favour. i guess roy will try to kill me with kindness next, but hes still a backstabbing piece of shit that spent the past few months lying about me. no amount of lazy half-flattery is going to change that. you decided to bullshit stallman to get back at me for just leaving. are you going to admit to him that you did? because theres ample evidence on this page and indeed, in your own bullshit rhetoric which this page documents as clearly as anything could. by the way roy, while youre reading this website-- you can find the address to it on this page on your own website: http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-240321.html maybe add it to your wiki, that way you dont need to worry about which browser on which of your dozen screens youre looking at. > https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/olivas-crimes---in-defence-of-oliva.html Mar 24 22:15 youre still a fucking troll, a fucking liar and a fucking coward. stop saying you take inspiration from pj-- who is none of those things. as for fighting for free software-- you talk a lot about systemd and then when people actually do something you bullshit about why they shouldnt (like you did to dfc and/or mincer) and you lie to other people about why i did it (to get away from systemd, microsoft penguinshit kernel and other problems like those-- not because i was miffed at stallman like you insinuate in this video, you lying two-faced yellow journalistic shit). you even downplayed crystals link to the stallman defence website-- what a waste, its a fucking great link. i didnt put it at the top of my front page just to show what a tool you are-- i put it there because its an awesome fucking link, and it will stay at the top of the front page for a good while. here it is again: => https://stallmansupport.org/ so you wont "forget [censor, lie to your viewers about] the address" ### august 12 ``` Thu 04:23:10 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ fixosdev was pulling his hair out (metaphorically) over anything with github DEPENDENCIES Thu 04:23:18 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ which means almost everything ``` theres a reason for that, lets see how long it takes roy to explain it to himself in an article. oh hey, six hours later, hes halfway there: ``` Thu 10:08:13 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ at one point you ask, were were not better off when things were simpler and smaller? Thu 10:14:51 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ lol ``` and hes talking about avoiding c++ and newer languages. the difference is hes gone from talking shit about someone who hasnt written for muckrights in 8 or 9 months (and i never chatted there either) to schmoozing a guy who is actually doing the same thing (removing dependencies) only hes going WAY, WAY further than i am even capable of doing. funny stuff. but its not news either, i wrote at least an article and a book chapter about this almost year ago: http://techrights.org/2020/08/09/features-harmful/ "Features Considered Harmful (Revised) | Techrights" http://techrights.org/2020/11/14/removing-monopoly/ "The Surest Path to Freedom is Removing Your Software" on that note, I HAVE A QUESTION: if i was "pulling my hair out" about this, then when roy was attributing the gnuhub research TO HIMSELF and saying it found "less than a dozen" projects (its more than 14) was he pulling his hair out, pulling my hair out, or doing a transplant of my hair to his own? anyway, ive already complained on this page about roy attributing emotions to things that are done for logical reasons. you have a reason for doing something (which roy is of course, not staying true to in the description either-- i WAS trying to remove github dependencies, but like i said lets see how long it takes roy to figure out the logical reason because its not too difficult) and someone else says youre "stressing out" over it or roy likes to pretend that im "sad" about something when i point out a drawback of doing it. its extremely condescending, and stallman has noted people do this to him as well. of course im not an emotionless person (neither is stallman) but it is annoying when people decide to imagine or assume an emotion is the reason youre doing something-- especially when its generic and dismissive and theres no evidence to support the assumption (thats often when people do this sort of thing). roy may imagine me pulling my hair out, but ive still got a lot more hair than he does. roys bullshit is coming back at full tilt, probably because i took the gloves off the other day, so its not entirely unexpected. but this is interesting: > Thu 04:23:37 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ then cancelling every person who dared say something not 100% along his own mindset im sorry roy, but youre projecting. i may be quite harsh with shills and liars and backstabbers, but when it comes to everyday people im very realistic about the rate at which they adopt "my mindset"-- a mindset you are not too familiar with anyway, so you simply make it up. you are the one that decided to start being an obnoxious, petty and spiteful douchebag just because we didnt agree on some things on your blog, which i helped you write for two whole years. then you launched a months-long smear campaign against me after i left, which i documented. why would that be necessary? even now, youre trying to smear me for nigh-imaginary transgressions based on (demonstrable) lies and twisted words. thats what cancel culture is all about! and still you project? and if you are spineless enough to be trying to refer to derek taylor, you and i had the same fucking concerns-- YOUR CONCERNS (same day as mine) are still in your chat logs. and i didnt try to cancel him, i simply pointed out (in email, i might add) that i wasnt going to watch his videos anymore. its not like i started a petition. youre the one that brought it up day after day after day... and, (mr. light on details-- oops, DOCTOR light on details, phd) in part because he made a very nasty video about richard stallman, which i wasnt aware of originally, where HE AGREED WITH STALLMANS CANCELLATION. you said we shouldnt try to cancel the cancellers, but that doesnt mean you need to lick their boots and smear his defenders. how far does your if-by-whiskey bullshit waffle go? so really, do you want to fact check your shit? because youre going to need a bigger shovel. (this is the fourth mention roys made of me in about 2 days. i guess taking the gloves off got his attention.) roy, youve been poking your ACTIVE community harder than usual. im not part of it anymore, im not part of muckrights anymore. its muckrights-sans-merde now. i already know youre going to be sloppy. here comes 40, roy. do you want to spend your 40s being more full of shit than youve ever been before? or do you want to take a (METAPHORICAL) look in the mirror, and maybe Inch Away Slowly from your constant fucking bs? i cant promise ill never criticise you for being LESS full of shit, because i know you fake even that. all i can tell you is, ill give you more shit for lying, like you do. lying is bad for you, doctor. you said yourself, it causes stress and unhappiness. you talk about retiring in your 40s. maybe retire your compulsive lying along with it. id post a number where you can talk to someone who can help, but it would just make it look more sarcastic, like i dont actually mean this. you can look up a phone number. you can be a better person. dont get me wrong, roy. im not counting on you facing this. i expect youll spend your whole life lying to people. you cant disappoint me though. either youll be a predictable twunt, or a full-fledged human being. its win win, but im sure that lying is easier and more fun for you. theyre stupid lies, roy. theyre easy for people to see through (if they gave a shit either way). you overcompensate by just dumping more and more shit on the other shit, but its not really like dumping more hay on a needle-- its like dumping more needles on hay. youre getting lies and bullshit everywhere. are you happy? because you dont LOOK happy. (note this is a question, and im basing this on his actual face, in videos) and for a guy who pretends not to know where my website is, you sure talk about me a lot in chat. i can tell you why i do this-- you spent two years taking advantage. manipulating. lying. now youre just trying too hard. i know you can TELL yourself this is still working for you, but thats the thing about lying to yourself. even when you do it to yourself, it still more and more work. all the time. now you have to tell yourself that its easier, too. because it always was, hmm? enjoy your 40s, roy. maybe try being less of a cunt, while youre at it. => https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org/ways-to-improve-on-muckrights.html you know-- grow as a real human being, instead of growing as a bunch of milkshakes, and fish. its what you would tell ryan, if he were exactly like you. i know he isnt, because hes actually open (for better or worse) about his shortcomings. im not picking on him, everybody has them. except you, of course. youd make up a problem you have just to avoid admitting a real one. its a shame nobody else can do it for you, roy. no matter how much you bullshit them. quite the opposite, actually-- its because you do. youre going to have to do this, more and more, to make it seem like its working. ive seen you giving extra shit to ryan lately, extra shit to people who havent done anything to you lately, treating more people more like shit. you think lying hurts? try realising what a fucking cunt youve been to everybody. then itll hurt. but at least youll be a real fucking person then. can you imagine? narcissism is curable. most people just dont fucking bother. i mean... theyre too good for that. i know where you get it from. and so do you. update: eight more hours later... ``` Thu 18:02:50 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ we need to get rid of shithub Thu 18:02:58 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ like freenode died github needs to die Thu 18:03:11 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ but it's propped up by a cabal of proprietary shills Thu 18:03:22 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ they hate communities more than they worry about Microsoft Thu 18:51:17 │ 〖MinceR〗 │ too bad david revoy is an ibm puppet too (his signature is on the anti-RMS letter) Thu 18:52:58 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ I know ``` its really not about anything but double standards and special pleading. roy wants to be able to point a finger at the same things i do, but he wants to criticise me for it, wait a bit, then says (or goes along with) the same things himself. i call this "the scooby doo maneuver". this isnt just hypocrisy on his part. its monopoly. and he will turn right back around and say its wrong, then agree and say the same, then say its wrong-- hes trying to please everybody on both sides, while condemning people that let him down (or stopped placating him and his bullshit) for actually meaning what he only says. this guy... is fucking ridiculous. but i woudlnt tell him that he can fix this, if it werent true. i dont think hes going to do it for me, of course. im not doing this for him. if he really wants to do better, he will have to do it himself. im simply calling him on his bullshit. => https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org

• license: creative commons attribution-sharealike 4.0 international (cc by-sa 4.0)
• https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/