Comments on: Why It’s Justified to be a Contrarian http://techrights.org/2012/01/21/off-topic-on-contrarian/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:41:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14 By: Michael http://techrights.org/2012/01/21/off-topic-on-contrarian/comment-page-1/#comment-132388 Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:06:18 +0000 http://techrights.org/?p=57588#comment-132388 I would add Stallman to the list of people who are sometimes crude just to get publicity. His comments about Jobs, for example, done just to get his name in the papers.

]]> By: Dr. Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2012/01/21/off-topic-on-contrarian/comment-page-1/#comment-132386 Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:48:41 +0000 http://techrights.org/?p=57588#comment-132386 That’s a common interpretation of contrarian as I understand it, but I also think of contrarian as similar to “sceptic”, where the sceptics are considered those who take nothing for granted, and not just challenge consensus. There are more “militant” sceptics out there. James Randi is perhaps among those, unlike for example Carl Sagan. Then you have people like Dawkins and Hitchens, where the latter is obviously being too crude sometimes because it gives him publicity.

]]> By: mcinsand http://techrights.org/2012/01/21/off-topic-on-contrarian/comment-page-1/#comment-132385 Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:34:14 +0000 http://techrights.org/?p=57588#comment-132385 Not to be contrary, but I thought a contrarian was one that takes up a contrary position just for the sake of being contrary :) IF I’m right, then you’re not a contrarian, but simply willing to state your opinions clearly, without pulling punches. Keep up the good work!

]]> By: Michael http://techrights.org/2012/01/21/off-topic-on-contrarian/comment-page-1/#comment-132382 Sun, 22 Jan 2012 03:26:41 +0000 http://techrights.org/?p=57588#comment-132382 You speak of your skepticism but call people names when they show they are skeptical of your claims. Also, you claim to stand up for those who are mistreated and yet you mistreat others – making absurd accusations of “Mac cultism” in my case (and openly lying about my views and about *recorded* conversations of ours) and about many people you claim are controlled by Microsoft.

When others treat people this way you claim to stand up for them, but then you do it yourself. In some ways you are your own worst enemy. With that said, I have repeatedly noted my respect for your decision to allow my often skeptical claims to be posted on your blog and while you have openly lied about me in the past you now mostly ignore me and do not repeat your lies (at least not often…). This shows you do have some level of character. And even with my disagreements with you, I respect that. Still, I wish you could face those people who disagree with you and not just run. For example, you offered to let me be on your show (a second time) but when you found out I planned on challenging some of your comments (I told you which ones – I was very fair and wanted to give you time to prepare) you rescinded the invitation and started calling me names. Poor form on your part. I still would love to be on your show – and have a nice, civil conversation about your views and comments (and any of mine, if you like).

Why don’t we – two people who disagree on many things but do agree on civil disagreement – show an example of our handling such disagreement civilly. Let us “face” each other in a forum where there is no easy way to dodge questions, but at the same time where there is also more of a connection and things are less likely to become heated. I would enjoy that – and I think it would be great to have you respond to some of my concerns and disagreements… show me and all of those who follow you how well you can defend your views and your comments. What better way to show the correctness of your views than to do so in response to someone who disagrees (in at least some areas… though we both are strong supporters of OSS and the OS movement).

Also (on a specific point you make), you speak of classes where “Except studying of ancient history, there is — in some states — bible studies and then a time leap to the 20th century.” I would love to see evidence of this. Do not get me wrong – I absolutely agree with you that many things are taught poorly, but I think you are exaggerating or using a single, uncommon incident and making it seem far more common.

]]>