Re: Thought Police - was C++ to C compiler

[Benjamin Scherrey <scherrey at switchco dot com>]

FLAME?!?! Please identify the flame? Or were you talking about Craig's
email? Joe you know for a fact (from our private emails) that it was
my only desire to kill this banter from this list. I responded to
Craig's false accusations and hypocrisy via private email and was
content to leave it at that but your implication that I have been
flaming the list and that my behaviour makes me a candidate for being
banned from the list demands a reply from me and an apology from those
who libel me.

Facts:

	I have never introduced off topic, anti-FSF or anti-GPL sentiment to
this list. I have only replied to messages and made every attempt to
keep off topic discussion off the list.
	
	You misrepresented another person's email as a request for "a
proprietary C++ solution" in an attempt to justify your possibly well
intentioned but certainly not justified bit of net-censorism. I
corrected this misrepresentation as did Marc.

	This list is no place for pro or anti FSF banter or personal attacks.
Its for discussion of the gcc compiler system, its development, and
the benefit of its users. I have certainly stayed within those bounds
and suggest that those who think (incorrectly) that I'm trying to
disrupt the FSF please keep their remarks to themselves, or at least,
off this list.

	Joe's participation in the gcc development has been critical and
personally beneficial to me. Craig's done a bang up job with the
Fortran I understand. However, none of this justifies recent
behaviour. While free speech may not be a right here, I expect that
truthful and ontopic speech is both a right and an obligation - for
everyone.

	regards,

		Ben Scherrey
	
Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> Craig Burley writes:
> 
> > Would the GCC Steering Committee please consider blocking this
> > guy (Benjamin Scherrey) from sending further off-topic missives to this
> > list?
> 
> I'm willing to let him have the one flame and get it out of his system.
> Assuming that there aren't more, I would prefer to simply drop the whole
> matter and return to discussing gcc development.  While the SC can ban
> people from the list, and will do so if necessary, it's only happened once
> in the history of EGCS/GCC and I'd rather not have to resort to that.
> 
> I'll only ask people to remember one thing: this list is not a public
> forum where free speech rights apply.  It is the GCC development
> list.  It is the property of the GCC project, which is run by the Steering
> Committee, using resources donated by Cygnus Solutions.  I would expect
> those whose ideology includes respect for property rights to honor that,
> even if good manners isn't sufficient.