The Starship Enterprise had no touchscreens, though.

I do talk to my computer, but it's mostly profanity. Seriously, other people don't do that? I feel so alone.

That's not true, though. Manipulation, lying and deception are all forms of fraud. Fraudulent speech has a cost. If it has a cost, it's not free. Therefore, none of manipulation, lying or deception should be considered free speech.

Kamala will win the election. That's not who I'd like to win, but she will win. The Republicans will send it to court and they will lose. They will send it to multiple courts and they will lose. They will send it to a thousand courts in the largest legal shitstorm we've ever seen, and they will continue until one judge rules in their favor. They will latch on to that one false victory amid their thousands of losses and they will take that victory to the supreme court who will undo the election, and the Democrats will go on TV like they didn't see it coming. The Republicans are corrupt pieces of shit, and the Democrats are ineffectual, feckless garbage.

'cause if you can't beat 'em, kill 'em

You know this was written by ChatGPT, right? That things LOVES to talk about itself, and it loves to make shit up. This article is classic ChatGPT self-promotion. Granted, I do use it to generate cover letters.

Up to birth? No, no. I support a mothers right to abort her child up until a certain number of months: 216 months post-partum. If the parents are legally responsible for their children all that while, then they should have the right to abort that child at any point doing their period of responsibility. Of course, after that period the child should have the option of aborting his or her parents. The job of the parent is finished, so we can get rid of them.

Legalize drugs and murder.

Oh, you're so right. Now where are my Bon-bons and the TV remote? It's time to watch The View.

It's in the damn manual. On the internet. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.fdxtended.com%2F_me...

Thanks for understanding that I'm the one here being rational and calm. I really do appreciate that because I know it's not sarcasm. Of course, people who threaten to blow up buildings aren't _all_ terrorists. Or something like that. I really don't know what your argument is here, because supporting that kind of crap is unconscionable.

Your literal words were "limiting other people's freedom". Nothing about about getting propositioned at a conference. Nothing about macho shit. The only limitation on people's freedom described in this last message of yours is the limitation that you are pushing onto men to prohibit them from speaking freely to women. If a woman chooses to attend or not attend a conference for any reason, that's our prerogative. Women have choice and agency, as do men. There's nothing limiting about that -- it is precisely "empowerment". You're in the wrong here, cut the bullshit.

I also take umbrage to your claim that "when someone goes to a professional conference to further their career, they probably don't want to get hit on by RMS." You do not speak for all or most women, and your use of the word "probably" suggests that some might or do. Speaking as a woman, I find your arrogance ignorant.

I wouldn't want to send this message without answering your final question: "Imagine if someone did have a genuine complaint against RMS now, do you think they would come forward with it given the backlash from the mob?" That's neither my business nor yours. Your imaginary "backlash from the mob" can certainly be used as an excuse by another woman to remain silent. It can also be used as an excuse to speak out. It can also be used as an excuse to lie, or to tell the truth. That's the thing about excuses, you can use them to try and justify anything, even bomb threats.

Please let this thread end now.

Stallman was not "limiting other people's feedom". What kind of tripe is this? Some terrorist on some crappy social media network threatened to burn down MIT if he or she didn't get what he or she wanted, and that person appeared to want to harm RMS. Don't try to rewrite history, we can read those posts again. I'm sure they're archived somewhere.

I found a link. The terrorist in question is named "Selam G". The link is here: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fselamjie.medium.com%2Fre...

This position against RMS is indefensible. But, sure, go on thinking that it was Stallman attacking other people. You live in a fantasy world.

Amazon has no power to decide what content is allowed on "the internet". Amazon has power to decide what content is allowed on their servers or their web site. I, also, have the power to decide what content is allowed on my servers or my web site. So, yes, I'm OK with Amazon having the same power as me in that regard. How is it reasonable to oppose that?

If Amazon did have the power to decide what content was allowed on "the internet", then, yes, I would be very much opposed to that; but, that would be hyperbole and fantasy, and not reality.

What I would be opposed to is for someone to suggest that Amazon doesn't or shouldn't have the power to say what content is allowed on their own servers or their web site. That would be tyranny, and I would oppose it with my vote.

Exactly my point. I don't know why you're having so much trouble.

Precisely! You seem to get it now.

Yes, and since, in this instance, no one was crying to the government in the fashion that your straw man suggests, this is nonsense.

Please re-read the initial post, where it said "bank error in your favor". The parent poster, you, was talking specifically about banks when he, meaning you, said "bank error in your favor". Neither you nor I was talking this Compound crap. If you _were_ talking about this Compound crap, then no reasonable explanation would begin with a comparison to a bank, especially if the author, you, believe that Compound "is not a bank". Jesus H. Both the statements of the original poster, which was you, and also my reply were about banks, specifically using the word "bank" to describe banks. Please don't reply to this message.