Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!applelink.apple.com!MAC.ROMOS
From: MAC.ROMOS@applelink.apple.com (Ian Hendry)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: A strange sort of fanaticism.
Message-ID: <2406@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 19 Jun 89 10:51:05 GMT
References: <8906190141.AA00386@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Yeah, I'm organized.
Lines: 62

In article <8906190141.AA00386@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU 
writes:
>    - You requested that all those who disagreed with you should write
>    to you.  "Even though I know you're wrong, I just want to know how
>    many of you there are."
> 
> Is curiosity an indication of fanaticism?

No, curiosity is not an indication of fanaticism, but one feature of 
fanatics is their absolute certainty that they are correct.  It is clear 
to me that the poster was not talking about your curiosity; he was 
probably talking about your attitude and certainty -- "I know you're 
wrong".  In my opinion you display many behaviors that are shared by 
fanatics.  You must know that you will be perceived by some people as 
such.  For example, you say you will not be swayed by legal rulings on the 
subject (you are willing to go to jail).  You are so sure of yourself that 
you are willing to practice you beliefs in direct defiance of the law (if 
the decision goes against your position). These may well be moral 
decisions, but they also smack of a fanatic.  Fanatic and moral are not 
mutually exclusive.

> Your use of the word "violence" is intended to call up people's
> associations with "violence against other people or their property"

You might be correct, but do you know the poster well enough to be sure 
that you also know his intentions?  This is, it seems to me you might be 
wrong, and you do come across to me as a person who is sure he is right.  
Perhaps this poster was referring to the likelihood that such an act would 
be done in as public an arena as possible and would be violent.  It is 
almost certain that he is not proposing "confiscation of private 
property."  I saw no call on his part for preventing you from destroying 
as many Macintoshes as you own.  I saw him note that there was a 
suggestion of violence in your taking an ax to what could be perceived as 
a surrogate of the Mac's manufacturer.  Perhaps you can point out where 
"confiscation" was mentioned or implied.  I cannot see it.

>    - You justified a comparison of your cause with those who protested
>    (and died) in Tienamen Square.
> 
> There can be useful analogies between lesser and greater outrages.
> Physicists used to draw useful analogies between electrons and
> planets--very disparate in magnitude.  I believe I stated my awareness
> of the difference in intensity when I made the analogy.

Physicists think that the differences between a planet and an electron are 
qualitative not quantitative (as you argued of your analogy).  In fact, 
what (beyond first semester physics) is *similar* between a planet and an 
electron?
I think most people would say that thousands of dead protesters are 
qualitatively different from a (relatively small) group of programmers' 
visions of how look-and-feel legal cases ought to be decided.

A FSF person suggested that readers should read your arguments carefully 
because there was a lot in them.  I disagree.  In my opinion, although 
provocative, your arguments lack substance.

I do not know the original poster.

Ian Hendry

Disclaimer:  Nothing I say reflects anything my employer means.  My
opinions are mine.