“The dispute is over how we use and define the word advocate, I
suppose. That and language in general, since language is the weapon
of choice in advocacy. And this all just forces us to question what
we mean by the whole notion of advocacy in particular. The debate
embraces all of that and more, actually, since it’s also in how we
view ourselves…”
“Now that the definitions are out of the way, we can get down to
brass tacks. Who cares? Why does it matter to me if I am labeled as
a Linux advocate, or an OS/2 advocate, or as an anti-Microsoft
advocate? There are two chief reasons: first, it matters because,
when that label is affixed to a person’s back (or forehead, or
wherever it is that advocates get branded as such), any return fire
he draws from opposing forces, for any reason, is aimed not just at
him, but at whatever cause he is seen to represent.”
“Secondly, it matters because, when you become an advocate,
you lose the right of free speech. As an advocate you begin to
speak from a script that you may or may not have had a hand in
writing. You begin to lose your own voice, your own style,
your own delivery. Everyone you’re speaking for is watching and
listening to make sure that what you are saying agrees with their
take on the party line. Without apology I will say simply that I am
not a political animal. Never have been, never will be.”