new release of GPA

[User]

On 10/29/2012 4:50 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 5:37 PM, User wrote:
>> Just because "you" have decided to cherry pick your definition of the
>> English word "free" does not make it more or less so. The word not only
>> can be used to mean "unconstrained", such as you seem to want, but it
>> can, and in fact more commonly does, also mean "obtainable without any
>> payment". And you will find both these definitions in the online Free
>> Dictionary here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/free.  Oh, and you
>> should feel "free" to quote me on that if you like.
> 
> Believe it or not, I do not agree with the Free Software Foundation.
> (I've said this before: perhaps you didn't see it.)  That does not
> change the fact that on a mailing list run by an FSF project, I believe
> it is only reasonable to comply with their request that non-free
> software, in the FSF sense of 'free software', not be recommended.
> 
>>>> And there was no disrespect intended from what I can see. "The fact 
>>>> remains that..." the GnuPG product is apparently broken and the OP
>>>> was looking for a GUI program. Not everyone wants to use a CLI.
>>> "Broken" is pretty strong language.
>>>
>>> Not everyone wants a CLI, true.  That doesn't mean GnuPG is broken: it
>>> means that GnuPG does not satisfy the needs of some users.
>>
>> Now you are making up stories because no one ever said that GnuPG CLI
>> was broken...
> 
> Read your own words, please.  You're the one who said the GnuPG product,
> not the GPA product.
> 
>> I could yes, but perhaps you should look for yourself since you have
>> never seen it, by your own admission. Anyway, how can you honestly
>> continue to justify your position of respecting that this topic not be
>> discussed when you yourself continue to respond with one reason after
>> another in your defense?  Your very actions are contrary to your
>> purported opinion. 
> 
> I never said GPGshell shouldn't be *discussed*.  I said that the Free
> Software Foundation would much rather that non-free software was not
> *recommended* on FSF-related mailing lists.
> 
As someone who appears not yet to have leaned how to reply to someone
else's post (all your responses were to your posts, not to the correct
post), do you really expect someone would take you seriously when it
comes to evaluating anything else?  What a joke!  :)  You must live in
la-la land, where all trolls like to linger.