[Fsf-friends] Comrades’ new-found love with IT

[Vikram Vincent]

2009/1/3 V. Sasi Kumar <sasi.fsf at gmail.com>:
>
> Do you mean the title is Left bashing? You did not want to notice that
> the content of many mails in this thread have expressed opinions against
> the "hijack bid" hypothesis and the accusation that the CPM was doing a
> volte face.

This is a cowardly approach. Since the CPIM cannot clarify here you
can keep posting mails. Go and contact the concerned people and ask
them for clarifications first.

 I think I too wrote to say that I don't believe that report
> in Indian Express that was the starting point of this discussion. But
> you don't seem to want to see this. You seem to want only to attack the
> FS community and FSFI. And you seem to see only what you want to see.
> And remember, you are doing a disservice to the Left by antagonising
> people in the name of the Left.

I am as "Left" as the Free Software Movement is "Left". I uphold the
principles of free software and people on this list who have been
associated with me over the last few years will vouch for that. They
will also vouch that I don't stand for any sort of crap including
trying to label the FS activists in Karnataka as CPIM by their
"clever" questioning.


>> If Sandeep or Sasi Sir or Praveen or anyone have any concrete
>> complaints that an entity is indulging in wrong activities and those
>> wrong activities are problematic for the FSM then feel free to bring
>> those issues up. I am sure that all of us can work out appropriate
>> solutions together.
>
> I welcome that. I think most people here know that the problem was that
> some people decided to start a chapter of FSF in Chennai without even
> contacting FSF India or FSF. Interestingly, they did not even send a
> message to the community mailing lists. They did not respond when Arun
> wrote to them asking who was organising the conference. Whoever it was,
> were, I think, misguided. And from the details given about the
> conference, it appears that these people were CPM sympathisers or
> activists, though I may possibly be wrong about this part. No one, so
> far, has said that they are not. Not that it matters, but that is all
> that we seem to be able to guess about them. This kind of activity could
> lead to problems in the FSM. That is all.
>

If it was not confirmed that they are CPIM activists/sympathisers then
what do you mean by "And from the details given about the conference,
it appears that these people were CPM sympathisers or activists,
though I may possibly be wrong about this part. "?
Your disclaimer is a hoax.