I challenge jeremy to a public debate somewhere. I forgot to say the name on that sentence. Just to clarify. If he believes he is on the right and I am on the wrong and "clearly delusional" (or whatever he accuses me of), then he shouldn't be scared of the debate, no? Oh, let me guess..."I don't want to give him a platform, he is worse than kanye west"? Yeah, I bet the excuses are going to be along those lines.
Good bye, guys, I guess this will get me kicked out from another forum. I lost count, but it feels like more than 109 forums, just saying. For no reason at all, of course. On Thu, May 11, 2023, 09:55 Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc> wrote: > Pressumption of innocence? > Right to defend yourself? > > Wow, that sounds amazing, but, for example, wouldn't me defendibg myself > from jeremy rubin be offtopic like...pretty much everywhere? > Not sure you're familiar with that story, certainly you didn't hear my > side of the story, did you? > Where would it be fine for me to defend myself? > I don't want to keep cosing bitcoin anymore, novody would review my PRs > anyway once jeremy made sure everyone thought I am evil. Or perhaps I'm > paranoid. Anyway, I would juat like to find the right venue to clean my > name or at least be allowed to try. If that venue exists at all, that is. > > Personally, I feel extremely censored. > I also feel I've been judged unfairly and margibalized by many. > If it was because of my mistakes and not because jeremy and others lied > about me behind my back, well, I would like to know at least. > > Am I really asking that much? > I'm surprised at how very few people are in favor of the american first > amendment, btw. > > I know, I know. Offtopic. Everywhere. Every time. > If something it's offtopic everywhere, that's a censored taboo, I think. > > Therefore I challenge to a public debate somewhere. For me to defend > myself and for him to defend himself too (if that's possible). > I know it's never going to happen, but I want to make sure it is known > that it is because of him, I'm more than ready to defend myself against > him. Is he? > > He can call me a nazi and even though I'm not one (I'm not even racist), > it is not so easy to sue for defamation in international jurisdictions. > Imagine if I called him a pederast (kethuboth 11b, sanhesrin 69b) or a > cannibal (samhedrin 64a) without giving him a chance to defend himself. > Wouldn't that be nasty? > I want him to be able to defend himself too, or at least try it. > > Now, moderators, censor this email for being offtopic and prove my point. > Jeremy will still get the email and I bet he won't want a public debate. > But I'm biased because I think he is guilty. Just like jeffrey epstein. > Is jeremy rubin a mossad agent? > Is there any reason to think so? > Or are these just rummors? > He should have a chance to try to clean his name, in my opinion. Again, > just like jeffrey epstein. > > On Wed, May 10, 2023, 17:57 Antoine Riard <antoine.ri...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Tony, >> >> > Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately >> since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears >> that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them >> once a week. >> >> As I think you're referring to my post of March 21th and as the author of >> this post, I'll politely refuse the qualification of "off-topic". I had and >> I still have the concerns of "frivolous legal claims" being used between >> bitcoin developers/organizations provoking a distortion of the neutrality >> of the development and a chilling effect of the technical discussions (i.e >> code we compile and spec we implement). For those reasons, it was my legal >> right and moral duty to inform the community of what is happening between >> Chaincode and myself. And here I'm following the recommendation of one of >> the moderators of the Lightning mailing list himself "If this worries you >> too, let's make sure we keep each other honest, OK?" [0]. >> >> When you think a group of people with open-source responsibilities are in >> a situation of conflict of interests or "moral hazards", or even the >> appearance of them, you have the right to expose the wrongdoing, including >> the _proportional_ revelation of private elements. People have done the >> "free choice" to conduct a career in open-source, for some even declaring >> in some context to maintain integrity and accept their actions to be >> submitted to external accountability [1]. While the exposure of private >> elements of public personalities might break common courtesy, it's a >> morally valid practice if you're familiar with the public institutions of >> US and Europe, and I think this practice has found validity in the history >> of open-source commons or IETF's protocol development [1]. >> >> Beyond, the Bitcoin and Lightning development communication channels >> constitute a public forum, where by nature the participants are exchanging >> ideas and defending competing interests. In consequence, the participants' >> rights and capabilities to contribute and speak their minds in those >> communication channels should be protected. Those communication channels >> are not your usual corporate workplace, and in case of conflicting >> principles, the maintainers of those communication channels should ensure a >> balance of rights and a proportionality in any restraining measure. >> >> And this new post is not to exonerate myself of any legal responsibility >> for personal matters that could be recognized as the outcome of a judicial >> process, respective of both rights of the accusation and rights of the >> defense. Rather to enlighten the Bitcoin community that the formal >> separation between private matters and open-source responsibilities, and >> the adequate check-and-balances to guarantee this separation is somehow >> what are the underlying stakes for this feud between Chaincode and myself, >> from my perspective. I can say missing an open-source engineering meeting >> or being revoked a few Github permissions matters far less than the clear >> affirmation and respect of the freedom of expression, the presumption of >> innocence and due process in the Bitcoin common space, all proportions >> conserved. >> >> I don't blame any party involved in this issue, nor assign "bad >> intentions''. One position is really a function of your life experiences, >> knowledge of the legal and cultural framework and access to the factual >> elements. As all human conflicts it is not binary rather "grey". People can >> be top executives at a billion-dollar company, having successful ventures >> with hundreds of folks under management, or have a lot of responsibilities >> for their relative young age, and still disagree on the set of legal and >> moral principles to apply in the present case. >> >> Finally, thanks to the Bitcoin friends who have reached out to call for >> level-headedness and cool-mindness in the public discussion of this complex >> topic. Like I said to them, in the lack of more suspected wrongdoing from >> the other side, I won't communicate further on this subject on the Bitcoin >> and Lightning technical channels. However I still firmly believe the >> discussion on the principles, abstract in the maximum from its private >> elements, should still be pursued on other channels. Independently, there >> is a legal channel opened between Chaincode and myself and good progress is >> made to find a serene and long-standing resolution to this issue. >> >> Best, >> Antoine >> >> [0] >> https://rusty-lightning.medium.com/the-corrosion-of-ethics-in-cryptocurrencies-f7ba77e9dfc3 >> [1] >> https://github.com/btrustteam/board-book/blob/main/vision/genesis_principles.md >> [2] >> https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/conflict-interest/ >> >> Le lun. 8 mai 2023 à 21:26, Tony Giorgio via Lightning-dev < >> lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : >> >>> Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately >>> since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears >>> that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them >>> once a week. >>> >>> Would hate to see this list die but wondering if there's a better place >>> for discussions? >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> On Apr 29, 2023, 9:57 PM, niftynei < nifty...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> When I joined the lightning community a few years ago, I was relatively >>> new to open source software and specification work. Rusty really impressed >>> on me on the importance of holding conversations, as much as possible in >>> public. >>> >>> Practically speaking, this encompasses IRC, this mailing list, and >>> github issues/PRs. >>> >>> The reason for this is twofold. It helps document the range of options >>> considered for technical decisions and it provides an interface point for >>> new participants to contribute to the discussion. >>> >>> Given some recent mails that were posted to this list, now seems like a >>> good time to reiterate the importance and preference of public >>> communication whenever possible, especially for specification or technical >>> discussions. >>> >>> >>> ~ nifty >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lightning-dev mailing list >>> Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Lightning-dev mailing list >> Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
