Moved 101 discussions

Several users have shown up here in order to have various 101 discussions and/or make silencing attempts.

They were generally moved to the User talk namespace, but Talk:EMACS virgins joke/101 discussions is an archive of these and where they were moved to. Thayvian 21:48, December 12, 2009 (UTC)


"Lefty" and the "David Schlesinger" mentioned in the first para are the same individual. Which name should we use for him? We're inadvertently making him sound like two people. Thayvian 21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he introduces himself in person as "Lefty" Mdz 21:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have a strong opinion either way (other than that we should clarify that the person who made the "significant disappointment" entry and who emailed Richard was the same person). I've replaced his legal name with "Lefty" given Mdz's comment. Thayvian 22:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


may I add up something?

most cults that deal with virgins, deal actually with female virgins. when you hear about virgin's sacrifice, it's about woman, not man.

eg: in fantasy, when evil dragosn demand virgis for sacrifice, they want female virgins, not male ones. etc.

the joke _was_ sexist because all the folklore (and some real things) about this issue is sexist. i don't think he was limiting the label of virgin to womans just to discriminate them, but this is debatable.

also, it's a shame that he made a non-apology. he had an excellent opportunity to be somewhat humble and that if he offended someone, and he actually cares, it was his fault. -- 03:54, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

virgin mary

now, it's about the cult of virgin mary: and mary is actually a woman.

some comments (i don't agree fully but it is useful):

Reply by twitter July 21 2009 10:39 AMPDT Do your homework, people.

and get a sense of humor, please. The cult of the Virgin Mary is sexist. Mocking that is mocking sexism. It might not be the funniest thing in the world, but we are talking about a text editor and childish reactions to free software.

Leaping from one stupid lie, the RMS is sexist, to the free software world is sexist is even dumber. There's a lot of problems in the world and free software stands against them better than non free institutions. M$, for example, is a tyranny of it's owners who are on record with some really vile stuff about "one night stands." It is right to condem things that are wrong, but it is not right to smear people and institutions that are part of the solution.


By Hooloovoo July 20 2009 4:06 PMPDT I watched RMS recently and he did his Emacs thing. I didn't find it particularly funny, but didn't find it offensive either. I'm with John, it is clearly targeting Catholicism and religion generally. I am pretty sure RMS is open about being an atheist, so feel free to criticise that. Having re-read transcripts trying to find sexism, I still find it a stretch. The "Virgin of Emacs" is a woman because the Virgin Mary was a woman. Had he been insulting the Heavenly Father, it would have been a man. Yes, RMS mocks religion. Yes, there is sexism in Free software. Yes, the Emacs routine would probably best be left out because it isn't that funny. No, that comment was not intended as sexist.

What is religion?

Here's the thing.

Ignoring Stallman's misstep and poor response, I think an understanding of something is missing here.

The comment that "this is inappropriate in what is a technical conference" is missing something. It implies that "tech" is "anti-" or "a-" religious.

The thesis that I would present in the contrary, is that tech is a religion; is religious. Chanting the Linux core code is no different than chanting the lines of the Bereitshit text-- some functions of each text, are fundamentally the same.

To which part of the entry are you replying? "this is inappropriate in what is a technical conference" is not a verbatim quote from any part of this wiki page.
"appropriate conduct at a technical conference" is the closest matching quote, and that quote is excerpted from an external blog entry and moreover, that external entry [1] seems to be talked about precisely about the gender issues rather than the portrayal of a religious ceremony. Thayvian 03:17, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

You people sicken me. Writing such a long defamatory text about a non-issue? Don't you people have jobs?