[Solar-general] Carta de David Sugar a SOLAR con relacion a Heinz.

Mie Mar 22 23:25:55 CET 2006

Acabo de recibir un pedido de David Sugar para que reenvie este mail a SOLAR

Date: Miércoles 22 Marzo 2006 18:51
From: David Sugar <dyfet en hipatia.info>
To: jucar en hipatia.info

I see Federico Heinz has written to the Directors of Solar about Madres,
and Pablo Napoli about Stefano's banishment from the list.  As I
witnessed this event, I thought it was only appropriate that I respond,
in that what Federico Heinz and Napoli wrote are in fact a fabrication.

First, the source of this conflict really goes to Richard's refusal to
speak at the Madres University, an act I happen to feel was a national
insult.  This happened because Federico Heinz convinced him, as Richard
said to me directly, that the Madres University teaches radicals and
terrorist ideas, and spoke in active support of the 9/11 attack on the
U.S.  These were the things Richard told me Heinz said that convinced
him not to speak at Madres.  I do fully trust what Richard told me on
this.

Second, we come to the matter of Stefano's expulsion from fg list.  The
original list, which was an international coordination list, had become
divided, in large part over the consequences of Richard's action on
behalf of Heinz.  Nobody would agree to any common ground between the
two parties.  This was in large part because, as Claudia Acuna had said,
Heinz had acted unethically in sabotaging talk at Madres, and because
Heinz chose to activily sabotage other events as well.  Stefano was the
only person who tried, very hard, to bring these two groups together and
at least agree on common rules and for the fsfla to agree to stop
sabotaging events of other groups.  Heinz on behalf of the fsfla
consistently refused to agree to even this limited level of cooreration,
and so the other group found it impossible to trust him at all, and no
agreements were ever made.

At one point in the middle of this, Heinz had the FSF create for fsfla a
new, moderated list, appearently (since no reason was stated or given
why this was done) so that they could censor disagreements.  Stefano
created a parallel list, I think the next day, which had no censorship,
and hence was free as in speech.

I think it was a week or two later when Stefano was banished.  There had
been no prior discussion whatsoever or reason given at the time.

A little later, Oliva came up with this made up story, that Federico
now repeats, that people on the list came together, voted or in some way
agreed to some rules, and Stefano had violated them.  I have seen every
message on the list prior and after, and this in fact never happened.
Maybe in secret some members of the list made some agreement, but if so,
it was not known to anyone publically.  And given that Stefano was the
person most trying to get some common agreement on rules of behavior, I
find this a particularly offensive and unforgivable lie by, what Claudia
Acuna recently said, are fundimentally unethical people.

Richard gave a completely different explanation to Stefeno when he met
him in Turin last week.  Richard said this was done because Stefano's
public list could have public archives.  Around the same time Oliva
wrote a new story about how he did not want his words copied into public
from a list without his expressed permission because they were his
copyrighted thoughts among other things.  I would be happy to do this
from my mailbox from the list in question if anyone wishes to see what
this person choses to say in private that is so secret.  This story made
some people from the original list upset because, of course, they never
agreed to this and thought it was rediculous.  I guess this is why
Federico Heinz has chosen to return to the original lie that Oliva
tried to sell.

Personally I think what Richard said is closest to the truth; that it
was a matter of control; that is; they did not have control over
Stefano's list.  If so that is rather sad and pathetic.  The other
reason might be because Stefano had tried so hard to do the one thing
they claim happened which never did; some agreement on common rules.
Hence, the best way to sabotage such an effort would be to remove him.
I still do not know what the real reason was, but I do know I cannot
trust a word such an unethical person says.  It is great, I suppose for
Oliva, and now Napoli, to be able to make things up after the fact from
a list that after all was kept from full public.  Perhaps it is time
that archives of the lists became accessible, so that people can then
see for themselves...

Stated and Undersigned...

       David Sugar, GNU Project and GNU Telephony
--
Diego Saravia
Diego.Saravia en gmail.com
NO FUNCIONA->dsa en unsa.edu.ar