Tsk , tsk :-)

[Don]

You can "defend yourself" without adopting the tactics of your
tormentor. If you stay in the Don persona and wrote reasonable,
helpful posts, you'd win the support of others, which is ultimately
what this is about, the rest of us. You'll never win over your
persecutor.

I only write reasonable, helpful posts! And there is no torment or
persecution. Just Bart's anti-social behavior that hurts the group.
That does nothing to Don. How can an anonymous entity (a "Don") be
hurt? That just doesn't make sense. The only person hurting is Bart as
can been seen from his ever increasing overexcitement.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with any one person. It's about the
group. And if the group came down on the *initiator* - and this is
important - *regardless* of what they think of the initiator (love him
or hate him) this would have been over by now.

How does that go: "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend your
right to say it". Conversely, if this group (in unison) made it clear
to the initiator (after the very *first* fake):

We agree/disagree with what you're saying but faking messages is not
the way to go about it. It does nothing to Don but only hurts the rest
of us.

If everyone did that, the initiator would realize the futility and we
would never be where we are now. Until the group as a whole takes a
stand this is bound to erupt again.

*This has nothing to do with Bart*

It has *everything* to do with Bart.

He's been stewing silently for years. Occasionally he erupts with
rabid vitriol but that apparently did not give him the satisfaction so
he now resorted to antisocial behavior. That's not working either so
he's now locked into a spiral he can't get out of without (in his
mind) losing face. Of course, by continuing he just makes it worse.

You like to (armchair) analyze, right? Can't you see the same patterns
here? Specifically, Bart's inability to analyze things e.g. what the
consequences his revelation of Ed supplying log data will mean? Not to
mention the meticulous attention to detail you yourself pointed out.
Etc. Or the red-hot rage after his identity has been revealed. That
really touched a raw nerve! Who else would waste so much time or care
that someone else's identity was revealed? No, this really cut Bart to
the bone. That's why he's so totally out of control now.

It is more logical to think that a poster tired of the incessant Don
anti-Vuescan hyperbole decided to jump in and try to lessen your
influence by posting evidence of your hypocrisy under your name. If
this were a regulated community, you'd have been expelled by now (and
so would the fake poster if he/she persisted.) It's not regulated, so
we have this sort of vigilante justice.

Don't look now Roger, but your bias is showing.

If this were a regulated community Don's "critics" are the ones that
would've been expelled.

Don never used profanity or engaged in anti-social behavior. His
"critics" do all the time. Have you forgotten that Don never responds
to insults and name calling? Of course, if Bart had done that instead
of faking messages, he would've been ignored.

If you were a bigger person, you'd stop perpetuating it as it goes
against what you claim to stand for. Are *you* a reasonable person?

Absolutely! But what you suggest is appeasement and surrender to a
bully, not reason.

You don't expect the victim to bow down and then blame the victim if
they refuse to take aggression lying down. You blame the aggressor.

Don.

 

[Bruce]

Don,

After a year of reading your posts, you get no sympathy from me and I
don't see why you expect any support from others.

You have a history of blind incessant attacks on VueScan, and direct
personal attacks on anyone who says anything supportive of VueScan. (The
"rabid" VueScan users)

You don't curse much, but consistently bait anyone who disagrees with
you using aggressive attacks on their competence and integrity. Then,
when they respond, you try to claim that you did not start the
belligerence.

Your "informative" posts are dangerous because you have several axes to
grind and are willing to distort your "facts" to fit. If directly
caught in a factual error, you go first to abstrusification (your
specialty), then to personal attacks, then to lies and misdirection and
finally (when others chime in) you claim you are being unjustly picked
on by a pack of bullies. At this point you might also post under
pseudonyms to provide fake support.

That you think that Bart has anything to do with any of this recent sad
mess is just another example of your inflated ego.

Roger's description of "New Don" as vigilante justice seems apt.
I do not agree with the vigilante's tactics, but if his actions might
force you to look at your own aggressive anti-social behavior that
poisons this group and brought this flame war on, those few "regulars"
left who do not already filter you would be happy.

 

[Roger S.]

Don quote: "If this were a regulated community Don's "critics" are the
ones that would've been expelled. "

Expelled by whom? You're delusional if you think you are popular or
respected in this forum. Social regulation isn't about who is right
(even if I think you're not right), but who lives by the standards of
the community, in this case, the regular posters.

If a majority voted that we wanted you to leave, would you?

 

[Steven Saunderson]

[snip]

Roger's description of "New Don" as vigilante justice seems apt.
I do not agree with the vigilante's tactics, but if his actions might
force you to look at your own aggressive anti-social behavior that
poisons this group and brought this flame war on, those few "regulars"
left who do not already filter you would be happy.

Congratulations for a well-written post, Bruce. Hopefully Don will
react positively and peace will return to this newsgroup.

 

[Don]

After a year of reading your posts, you get no sympathy from me and I
don't see why you expect any support from others.

Read the message. I said:

It's not for the sake of any one individual (least of all me!) but for
the sake of the group.

You have a history of blind incessant attacks on VueScan, and direct
personal attacks on anyone who says anything supportive of VueScan. (The
"rabid" VueScan users)

That's just wrong on all counts but I'm not going to digress other
than to note that I said *SOME* (the rabid) i.e. *NOT* to be confused
with regular users.


Please note there were no messages from "fake Bart" today!

Question:

a. If "somebody" continues to fake Don's messages anyway, or
b. If "somebody" starts this up again at a later date

Will you condemn that "somebody" immediately and ask them to stop?

Yes or no?

Don.







































;-)

 

[Don]

If a majority voted that we wanted you to leave, would you?

Another way of saying mob rule, right? A lynching mob, no less.

In a civilized society, people agree to disagree agreeably. That means
without violence.

Ironically, I was planning to leave in about ~6 weeks anyway, when I
expect my scanning project to finish.

Don.














































;-)

 

[Roger S.]

If a majority voted that we wanted you to leave, would you?

Another way of saying mob rule, right? A lynching mob, no less.

Is Democracy "mob rule?" You seem to have a low opinion of the other
regular posters if you think we're a "mob." Exile has a proud
tradition going back to the ancient Greeks, and is much more civilized
than a lynching, as you get to live elsewhere and bother somebody else.

If you think others want you around, let's put it to a vote.

 

[tinnews]

Don quote: "If this were a regulated community Don's "critics" are the
ones that would've been expelled. "

Expelled by whom? You're delusional if you think you are popular or
respected in this forum. Social regulation isn't about who is right
(even if I think you're not right), but who lives by the standards of
the community, in this case, the regular posters.

If a majority voted that we wanted you to leave, would you?

This *ISN'T A FORUM*, no one needs to 'leave' or 'enter', it's just
here. It's a bit like people sitting around in the town square
talking with each other (or not) as they want. If you find someone's
conversation unsympathetic then just ignore it, if enough people do
that then they will be left to talk to themselves.

 

[Don]

Is Democracy "mob rule?" You seem to have a low opinion of the other
regular posters if you think we're a "mob."

Democracy does *NOT* oppress any minority, Roger. On the contrary! It
makes sure the minority is protected as long as it does not resort to
violence. That protection is *the key* aspect of democracy!

In this context Don *NEVER* resorted to violence. Indeed, all the
violence has been directed *at him*! And he ignored it as long as it
was "only" name calling and insults. That's democracy.

- When you (plural) post fake Don's messages, and/or
- When you (plural) try to cancel Don's messages, etc.
That is mob rule. Nothing to do with democracy.

If you think others want you around, let's put it to a vote.

You seem totally confused, Roger.

Just because the majority votes one way or another is *NOT* democracy.

Hitler was democratically elected.
Hamas was democratically elected.
Etc.

Therefore - according to you - persecution of minorities and
concentration death camps are OK if most people vote for it.

Don.

 

[Don]

Is Democracy "mob rule?" You seem to have a low opinion of the other
regular posters if you think we're a "mob."

You should also know that the latest outrage Bart resorted to (over
the last few days) is to try canceling Don's messages i.e. trying to
censor Don's free speech.

Is that OK?

Before you answer, you should also know Bart has now started canceling
other people's messages too! Here's *YOUR* message he cancelled:

--- start ---

Please stop it, fake Don. You've made your point, mocked Don's
statements, etc, but aren't doing anything at this point beyond
dragging out this fight.

--- end ---

How do you feel about Bart canceling your messages, Roger?

Does Bart have the right to decide which of your messages are
"allowed" in this group?

Is that "democracy" you so loudly proclaim?

This is precisely why anyone reasonable should have *immediately* come
down hard on Bart after the very first fake *without qualifications*!

Don.

P.S. NOTE: Canceling messages doesn't really work because most
newsservers these days ignore them e.g. Google. That's also why he
didn't just cancel "fake Bart" messages but felt he had to comment on
every one.

 

[Don]

This *ISN'T A FORUM*, no one needs to 'leave' or 'enter', it's just
here. It's a bit like people sitting around in the town square
talking with each other (or not) as they want. If you find someone's
conversation unsympathetic then just ignore it, if enough people do
that then they will be left to talk to themselves.

Exactly!

Just like Don ignores all the insults and name calling. And he often
enough suggested they do the same. But no...

Not only that, but Don has often assured people he will not change his
name or email address, and invited them (if they don't like what he
writes) to put him in their kill files. But no...

Don even pointed out there is a VueScan group already and he has no
intention of joining it, so they will be "safe" there. But no...

None of that is good enough for them!

The "VueScan mob" (not to be confused with reasonable VueScan users!)
is just not happy with any of that. The rabid lynch mob wants blood!

Which is why they applaud when "somebody" resorts to anti-social and
criminal behavior of faking Don's messages or trying to cancel them.

That says it all.

Don.

 

[Bruce]

Don,

You still seem totally blind to your own aggressive and anti-social
behavior.

I did not ask you to leave, just to cool your aggression.

For example, your deciding that people discussing VueScan should leave
this group because you don't like it and you will attack them is
childish, egocentric and aggressive. Such behavior will near always
prompt some idiot to take the bait and come back at you.

 

[Don]

I did not ask you to leave, just to cool your aggression.

What aggression?

This is exactly the perennial problem. Your perception is so skewed,
you keep reading between the lines and attributing things to me you
*THINK* and *FEEL* are there even though you have no objective proof
(in context!) whatsoever. It's all in the eye of the beholder!

The only aggression (substantiated by facts!) has been aimed at me up
to and including the faking of messages, by only a handful of (same)
people who keep going on and on long after I stop responding.

Now, let's say for the sake of the argument that I "provoke" this as
you seem to *feel* - which I do *NOT*, of course - what excuse is
there to go on an on after I *STOP* participating? And how am I to
blame for their lack of self-discipline?

Can you answer me that?

For example, your deciding that people discussing VueScan should leave
this group because you don't like it and you will attack them is
childish, egocentric and aggressive. Such behavior will near always
prompt some idiot to take the bait and come back at you.

Of course, I said nothing of the sort.

I am *NOT* telling them to leave. I am telling them to:

1. Ignore (like I do), *NOT* post flame baits and insults
and/or
2. Use their kill files (I do not change my address)

What's wrong with that?

Now, if they refuse to do either then the only other option is to go
somewhere where I am not. But that's their choice, if they can't
behave reasonably i.e. ignore my messages or use the kill file.


And you still haven't answered my other question:

When "somebody" starts faking (my) messages again, will you condemn
them immediately and without qualification and ask them to stop?

Yes or no?

Don.

 

[Bruce]

Don

Here are quotes from your own messages (not the impostor).

You are being quite aggressive, declaring that any posts here about
VueScan are spam, and telling people to take such discussion elsewhere
or they will not be safe from your attacks.

In response to a report of a new VueScan version on May 26th:

As always, thanks for the spam, Robert! We don't get enough of it. The
new twist of pretending to be a "simple user" doesn't fool anyone. Separate post:
No, what I don't like is spam. As others have repeatedly pointed out
this is *not* a VueScan support group. For that go to:

alt.comp.periphs.scanners.vuescan

Or ask the VueScan author to set up something on the site. Another post by you:
Don even pointed out there is a VueScan group already and he has no
intention of joining it, so they will be "safe" there. But no...

And here you are this Friday denying it.

Of course, I said nothing of the sort.

I am *NOT* telling them to leave. I am telling them to:

1. Ignore (like I do), *NOT* post flame baits and insults
and/or
2. Use their kill files (I do not change my address)

What's wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is then newbies would not get to hear that
others disagree with you.

You do not get to decide what people can post here, but I do agree that
posts impersonating others are despicable, but so are some of your
attitudes and misrepresentations.

 

[Don]

You are being quite aggressive, declaring that any posts here about
VueScan are spam, and telling people to take such discussion elsewhere
or they will not be safe from your attacks.

Your problem is that you're taking isolated messages *OUT OF CONTEXT*
(!!!) and then drawing *absolutists* (ALL, ANY, ...) "conclusions"
based on these *isolated, out-of-context* snippets.

I do *not* declare *ANY* post about VueScan spam!
I do *not* tell people to take *ALL* VueScan discussion elsewhere.

In response to a report of a new VueScan version on May 26th:

Indeed! He does that regularly! That's what makes it spam.

In this particular case pretending to have a (beginner!) "question"
from such an experienced user is a dead giveaway!

Considering that VueScan's so-called "upgrades" come fast and furious,
tripping over themselves to fix various problems, such announcements
do not belong in a *generic* scanner group. See below.

Heck, in the olden days the mere naming of a commercial product on
Usenet was considered out of bounds!

Separate post:

But the *same thread*! You have to take the *FULL CONTEXT* not
selective quoting in isolation.

Indeed! And what's wrong with that?

If you have an occasional question about VueScan, fine. But this group
is *NOT* a VueScan support group! That's the bit you're missing. <===!

And I'm not alone stating this. For example:

--- start ---

I think you will have difficulty finding Vuescan in the name of
this group!

--- end ---

Indeed! A reputable manufacturer would set up a discussion group on
their site. This goes double for a program as buggy as VueScan!

Another post by you:

Indeed! And what's wrong with that? Also, see below.

And here you are this Friday denying it.


What is wrong with that is then newbies would not get to hear that
others disagree with you.

Again, with selective quoting out of context and then drawing
"conclusions" based on such a distorted, "keyhole" view.

Of course, anyone has the right to disagree! But do it in a civilized
manner. Don't just shout insults, or worse, fake messages.

If one can't do that (disagree in a civilized manner) *THEN* one has
the two choices I list above. That's the full thread. Don't just pick
that quote without taking into account previous thread messages.

Now that you have the *FULL CONTEXT*, what's wrong with that?

You do not get to decide what people can post here, but I do agree that
posts impersonating others are despicable,

So, will you next time condemn them immediately and without
qualification and ask them to stop?

Not to "defend Don" but to prevent pointless and useless threads.

but so are some of your
attitudes and misrepresentations.

And you are yet to point a single one *IN CONTEXT* i.e. without
drawing absolutist and generic conclusions based on selective quoting.

Don.

 

[Don]

What is wrong with that is then newbies would not get to hear that
others disagree with you.

Since this gets lost in long threads here's a summary in full context.

Do you really think that shouting abuse and faking messages is going
to impress the newbies, while Don keeps calm and objective?

Those who disagree have (at least) 5 options:

1. Respond with facts and objective statements (civilized option).
2. Ignore (civilized option).
3. Put "offending" person in your kill file (civilized option).
4. Shout insults, try to pick a fight/start a flame war (uncivilized!)
5. Fake messages (criminal and despicable!).

The last two are a clear sign that they have lost the (civilized)
argument and are just lashing out.

Don.

P.S. Anyway, I'm off on vacation next week. Among other places I'll
visit the Netherlands. Maybe I should pay our Bart a visit! ;o)

 

[Don]

4. Shout insults, try to pick a fight/start a flame war (uncivilized!)
5. Fake messages (criminal and despicable!).

Of course, I regularly fake messages and I've never
denied faking messages. For instance, I've used the
e-mail address Joe_Nanaimo at hotmail dot com and
goldenlasky at hotmail dot com to post fake messages,
shout insults and try to start flame wars. Tsk, tsk

I've also faked dozens of messages to make them
look like they've come from Bart, Ed, Ralf and
others, in my paranoid (and mistaken) belief that they
were posting faked messages too.

I regularly shout insults, try to pick fights, try to
start flame wars and fake messages. It's quite
hypocritical for me to accuse others of doing this.

Don

 

[Don]

Of course, I regularly fake messages and I've never
denied faking messages

OK, folks, here we go again.

Are we now going to descend into another round of pointless spamming
or are you all going to tell the "somebody" to cut it out for the sake
of the group?

We'll now see who's merely paying lip service to the "common good" and
who really means it

Don.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

Of course, I regularly fake messages and I've never
denied faking messages

Like Don said:

OK, folks, here we go again.

Are we now going to descend into another round of pointless spamming
or are you all going to tell the "somebody" to cut it out for the sake
of the group?

We'll now see who's merely paying lip service to the "common good" and
who really means it

Bart

Spam me here: (e-mail address removed)

 

[Roger S.]

Are we now going to descend into another round of pointless spamming

or are you all going to tell the "somebody" to cut it out for the sake
of the group?

We'll now see who's merely paying lip service to the "common good" and
who really means it

Okay, not-Bart and not-Don,
The truce was holding nicely. Can't we resume it? There have even
been non-Vuescan bug related postings recently. Isn't that progress?

Have a nice vacation Don, and I hope your scanning project wraps up
well.

Roger