Re: [libreplanet-discuss] libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 113, Issue 3

[fudmier]

i think we know that Epstein was a intelligence agency controlled 
person,?? his gifts to
Universities?? have a long trail to donors and purposes AFAICT.

According to other articles I have read: sex, under age, same sex, or 
whatever, was
the instrument that sourced the threat that blackmail (much like 
pointing a gun) could
transform into forced espionage.???? The victims of this activity were 
both the
women duped into sexual service and the men enticed.?? They lived under 
constant
threat they that if they did not give intelligence or bend in the way 
instructed,
they would be destroyed for life.

How many of these men victims were drugged or drunk.. or misled ?
There is more here then just men's aggressive sexual weaknesses..these are
the efforts of foreign agents with backing of foreign governments or one 
or more
of their agencies.

The problem I have with the whole thing, is the women victims have not 
come forth
as soon as they could..much of the media is owned by those involved in 
the business
and the federal prosecutors refused to prosecute those involved and the 
people
that give top secret clearances often do not deny clearance on the basis 
of these
forced indiscretions that loaded the guns of espionage and corruption.

I am suspicious that to be admitted to echelons in government or 
corporate places,
it is often necessary to first be made black_mail_able. so that the 
power of the
office can be used by third parties to indulge espionage or corruption 
of purpose.

I think nearly no one has a full and complete picture of this.



On 2019-09-15 03:44 PM, libreplanet-discuss-request@libreplanet.org wrote:
> Send libreplanet-discuss mailing list submissions to
>         libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         libreplanet-discuss-request@libreplanet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         libreplanet-discuss-owner@libreplanet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of libreplanet-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: Is Stallman nuts? (Thomas Lord)
>     2. Re: Is Stallman nuts? (Adrienne G. Thompson)
>     3. Re: Is Stallman nuts? (Betsy Garrett)
>     4. Re: Is Stallman nuts? (Leah Rowe)
>     5. Re: Is Stallman nuts? (Leah Rowe)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 13:30:46 -0700
> From: Thomas Lord <lord@basiscraft.com>
> To: MARY-ANNE WOLF <mgwmgw@comcast.net>
> Cc: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Is Stallman nuts?
> Message-ID: <3bfa1f35321f6e864b46b4dd3619e39b@basiscraft.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Mary-Anne Wolf,
>
> You linked to an article that includes the full text of the email
> threads.  I will quote Richard Stallman from his email to the CSAIL
> list:
>
> "We know that Guiffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein.  She was
> being harmed.  But the details do affect whether, and to what extent,
> Minsky was responsible for that." -- Richard M. Stallman
>
> By "the details", Stallman means critically important information about
> what happened - information that is not found in the depositions or
> other public evidence, so far.
>
> Stallman has not exonerated Minsky.  He is not asserting that Guiffre
> consented to sex with Minsky. Indeed, Stallman apparently believes
> Guiffre did not consent to sex with Minsky.   However, he has asked for
> care and precision when describing what we know about what Minsky did.
>
> -t
>
> On 2019-09-15 10:35, MARY-ANNE WOLF wrote:
>
> > https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing
> >
> > https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794
> >
> > I have been a financial supporter of FSF since... 2011 at least.  I first used 
> > emacs in... the 1980's I think it was.
> >
> > Way to drive away any female supporter of FSF and Libre software generally, 
> > Richard! I really did think you were smarter than that.
> >
> > Look!  A person underage (and the age is defined differently in different 
> > states) CANNOT give consent to sex.  That is why there is such a thing as 
> > statutory rape.  Thus, whether the young lady was paid (and prostitution is 
> > also illegal in most places, and transporting someone for purpose of 
> > prostitution also) and whether she was willing in any other sense, if she was 
> > too young, she CANNOT have given consent to sex, so the sex MUST have been rape 
> > as legally defined.
> >
> > If Stallman is too stupid to understand that, the FSF needs to throw him out 
> > with force and distance itself from him as fast as they can, before FSF loses 
> > the support of most of its female supporters and a large fraction of its more 
> > woke male supporters.
> >
> > Is Stallman nuts?
> >
> > Mary-Anne
> > _______________________________________________
> > libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:34:50 -0500
> From: "Adrienne G. Thompson" <adriennegayethompson@gmail.com>
> To: Thomas Lord <lord@basiscraft.com>
> Cc: MARY-ANNE WOLF <mgwmgw@comcast.net>,
>         libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Is Stallman nuts?
> Message-ID:
>         <CACvtE5HY1ehwg1WkXBp+4iTxa1qLRNy64iDpe14TJ2errUn5VQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Typo:
>
>
> > ... not to attempt to defend his idols (some of *whom *I, *personally*,
> > know are not worth defending) and to get a female FSF colleague to censor
> > all his comments pertaining to women before these comments go public.
> - Yes, I tend do regard men who are not worth defending as "things" hence
> the which/whom schism.   ;-)
>
> ????
>   Adrienne