>     Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to

quoted text
>     compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free,

>     you are a slimy hypocrite.

>

> I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.

Yes, and you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole.
> There is a big practical difference between making a free system

quoted text
> suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a

> non-free system.  We treat the two issues differently because they are

> different.

You treat them different because it is convenient for your agenda of

hatred against groups of people who, with a lot less donation money,

actually suceed at making full operating systems.
You treat these issues different because you are a hypocrite.
> People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is

quoted text
> unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them

> about a system and they will then switch to it.  Also, switching

> operating systems is a big deal.  People are unlikely to switch to a

> non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it.

Oh, so this is like thought crime?
> Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a

quoted text
> free program run on it is small.  However, it is our practice when

> doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and

> bad for your freedom.  If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows

> don't say this, I'll make sure to add it.

It is unethical for you to come attacking our efforts.
I am going to ask some of the ports people to make the ports system

point at a few more proprietary and non-free pieces of software.
In honour of your hypocrisy.
> By contrast, many non-free applications are not well known, and

quoted text
> installing one is much easier--it does not require changing everything

> else you do.  Thus, even telling people about a non-free application

> could very well lead them to install it.

How convenient for your hypocrisy.
> I've published both of these positions before, but in this discussion

quoted text
> I only mentioned the one that is relevant to my views about OpenBSD.

> Is that hypocrisy?  Is that lying?  No, just sticking to the point.

> But now that people have raised the other issue, here is my position

> on it.

It is lying, and it is hypocrisy.
You are a slime who changes his position as he needs.
You may have had value ten years ago, but people will see that you don't

anymore.