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

Mie Mar 22 23:48:47 CET 2006

David esta tan indignado con esta cuestion que metio a Pablo en la bolsa por
que Pablo menciono el caso de Stefano, ya le estamos aclarando a David que
Pablo solo indico el caso stefano como un caso extraño, justamente lo que es,
no es que se haya manifestado contra stefano.

Como dije y ustedes ven este tema involucra a mucha gente en muchos ambitos,

n Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:25:55 -0400, Diego Saravia wrote
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Solar-general mailing list
> Solar-general en lists.ourproject.org
> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/solar-general

-- 
Diego Saravia 
dsa en unsa.edu.ar
Diego.Saravia en gmail.com (usar solo si hay problemas con unsa.edu.ar)