"The previous part was intentionally vague."No, not really. The very same people who forced him to see therapists and make a public apology (as a tacit condition for getting back to his own project) keep using that malicious talking point. We saw Gulagboy doing the same, in effect claiming that their victim of attack (concerned trolling) appreciated and was grateful for the attack.
That went on: "But, I must confess that your response reminds me of an interaction I once had with a prominent Silicon Valley figure who disagreed with a thesis I would explore in my book, namely that Stanford University greatly influenced how the Internet developed. His condition for speaking with me, I came to learn, was that I agree he was right and I was wrong. We never did have that conversation. As I mentioned at the top, I'm glad for all the links you've made and if you want to speak about them, please do let me know."
"The short story is, the same people who months after IBM had taken over Red Hat (on paper) unseated Torvalds and months later defamed Richard Stallman (it helped distract from what Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein did at MIT) are once again looking for "blood"."Facts don't matter to these people. They have a mission and they want to topple people on behalf of rich liars. I could suggest a raw interview, but that's not what he was after. I even said. "I can suggest we co-author an article that explains pertinent, verified facts about LF." He was not interested, either.
The short story is, the same people who months after IBM had taken over Red Hat (on paper) unseated Torvalds and months later defamed Richard Stallman (it helped distract from what Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein did at MIT) are once again looking for "blood". Whose? Hard to tell. But be very suspicious. In the next part we'll analyse the motivations ⬆