The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Kent Paul Dolan]

This isn't even the first time this has happened; this fruitcake is a
real piece of work:

First he gets caught following up an article without paying attention to
where it was being posted, so he finds someone else to blame, but
without admitting his real concern:

To: xanthian@well.com
Subject: your posts
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)

Can you please avoid junk cross posting, e.g. to misc.misc and even
more dubious groups, it really annoys people, quite understandably.

So I tell him why I crosspost:

From:  xanthian Mon Apr 22 14:04:08 2002
To: dewar@gnat.com
Subject: Re: your posts

Robert,

All my posts, everywhere, are cross-posted to misc.misc; it has to do
with
a decade long battle with the mindless maggots who think group charters
don't apply to them.

When I cross-post to talk.bizarre, it is because some part of what I
wrote
will amuse the people there.

Otherwise, I cross-post when the topic is appropriate for the indicated
newsgroups.

xanthian.

At which point he admits that he's mad because _he_ made a mistake:

To: dewar@gnat.com, xanthian@well.com
Subject: Re: your posts
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)

I got angry messages from talk.bizarre. I really think this
cross-posting
is a very bad idea. Since you are doing it on all your posts, I have
added
you to my kill list, since I don't want to make the mistake of repeating
this mistake and understandably make people mad.

THanks for your note.

To which, having been twice insulted, I try to respond:

From: xanthian Mon Apr 22 16:56:23 2002
To: dewar@gnat.com
Subject: Re: your posts

Funny, I _never_ get angry messages from talk.bizarre for my xposts
there,
perhaps because I take care that what I post actually contains something
the generous person might consider *bizarre*.

As for kill files, have at it.  I kept a long string of your inane
letters
defending your rudeness to c.l.a posters online for general consumption
for
a _very_ long time, they may be there still, though I think lack of
space
eventually did them in; it isn't as if you or I have compatible life
philosophies or anything.

xanthian.

But of course, having twice disobeyed my long past admonishions to keep
his worthless and provocative tripe out of my email box, the gutless
coward has one again spammed and run:

To: dewar@gnat.com, xanthian@well.com
Subject: Re: your posts
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 19:58:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)

Sorry mail is no longer being accepted at this address from
xanthian@well.com
so your mail is returned unopened


When is publishing private email OK?  When the perpetrator leaves no
other choices.

And as I say, this isn't the first time this entire cycle has gone
around, making at least both of us slow learners.

It's too bad someone with such low personal morals has his hooks so
firmly sunk into the Ada community; without his constant obstructionism
and insults to new Ada users, real progress in bringing Ada into synch
with modern programming practices might be possible.

FYI

xanthian.



-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Jim Rogers]

I would appreciate it if you would restrict your invictives to
private communication with the person with whom you have a
problem.

I am not interested in the personal opinion of any one person
regarding another in this news group. I am interested in
information about Ada. If I want to be exposed to nasty personal
attacks I only need to watch the television news.

I would hope all people would begin to learn that public display
of civility is more constructive and profitable than any public
display of hostility. We may honestly disagree concerning many
issues. Disagreement is not grounds for hostility.

Jim Rogers

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

> This isn't even the first time this has happened; this fruitcake is a
> real piece of work:
> 

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Kent Paul Dolan]

"Jim Rogers" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> I would appreciate it if you would restrict your invictives to
> private communication with the person with whom you have a
> problem.

If you bother to _read_ what I posted, you will feel like a total fool.

Not, particularly, that it was my intent to cause you to do so, you did
that by yourself.

xanthian.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Robert Dewar]

Jim Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3CC4D85D.9080108@worldnet.att.net>...

Hmm! I did not see the KPD posting that started this thread, since he
is in my kill file. I gather that upsets him, but he should not be
so upset. I have only limited time to spend reading CLA, and I find
it helps if I am a bit selective in reading posts :-)

And now I am afraid that this whole thread gets added to the kill
file (I routinely kill entire threads in CLA, I find only a few
to be of interest. I hope people don't find this "slimey", it's
just that I have a lot of pressure on my time :-) :-)

Robert Dewar

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Kent Paul Dolan

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <27af1a1d6acaba932a22347a707a1d25.48257@mygate.mailgate.org>, "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> writes:

> All my posts, everywhere, are cross-posted to misc.misc; it has to do
> with
> a decade long battle with the mindless maggots who think group charters
> don't apply to them.
> 
> When I cross-post to talk.bizarre, it is because some part of what I
> wrote
> will amuse the people there.
> 
> Otherwise, I cross-post when the topic is appropriate for the indicated
> newsgroups.

Your actions are misusing comp.lang.ada.

If you want to put your text into those other groups that is fine,
but comp.lang.ada does _not_ need irrelevant cross-posts coming in
from those groups.

In particular, the part about using comp.lang.ada as a tool in
your "decade long battle" seems particularly slimy.

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Kent Paul Dolan

[Kent Paul Dolan]

"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote:

> In particular, the part about using comp.lang.ada as a tool in
> your "decade long battle" seems particularly slimy.

Reading comprehension seems to be as big a problem here as elsewhere on
the net.

I am using _misc.misc_ as such a tool, and all my postings to all
newsgroups go there, except when I forget to crosspost.  Go look.  Since
absolutely anything is on topic in misc.misc, this is in no wise an
abuse of anything, nor should anyone else feel embarrassed to
accidentally put a posting there.

Notice that _Robert_ got chastised for posting to talk.bizarre, because
_his_ posting was inappropriate there, while mine, appropriately
crossposted, contained material appropriate for both groups in a
seamless whole posting.

xanthian.




-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Kent Paul Dolan

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <0fc8b1beb99969b0162d857216df7023.48257@mygate.mailgate.org>, "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> writes:
> "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote:
> 
>> In particular, the part about using comp.lang.ada as a tool in
>> your "decade long battle" seems particularly slimy.
> 
> Reading comprehension seems to be as big a problem here as elsewhere on
> the net.

I gather that from the response you provide below:

> I am using _misc.misc_ as such a tool, and all my postings to all
> newsgroups go there, except when I forget to crosspost.  Go look.  Since
> absolutely anything is on topic in misc.misc, this is in no wise an
> abuse of anything, nor should anyone else feel embarrassed to
> accidentally put a posting there.

The problem for comp.lang.ada is when someone responds in another
group to something which is off-topic in comp.lang.ada.

> Notice that _Robert_ got chastised for posting to talk.bizarre, because
> _his_ posting was inappropriate there, while mine, appropriately
> crossposted, contained material appropriate for both groups in a
> seamless whole posting.

And that is the reason why we don't want you crossposting between
such groups and comp.lang.ada.

Since you willfully disregard this comp.lang.ada policy, I shall
refrain from further interaction with you, and I predict others will
also.

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Kent Paul Dolan

[Robert Dewar]

Actually I think the subject of this thread is inappropriate. I don't
regard KPD has having "slimy ethics", I really know very little about
the ethics of this chap. All I know is that I don't like his cross-posting
policy, so I put him in my kill file. I do note that he posted private
email, probably violating my copyright, but I regard that as merely
bad netiquette in this context, and he need not worry about hearing
from my copyright lawyer :-) If we tried to sue everyone who behaved
badly on the net, we would have no time for anything else! I also
find his posts to have little value tecnically, but again, that's
hardly a crime, and if that were grounds for putting someone in
a kill file, I fear my kill file would bump into whatever size
limits some hapless programmer has implemented there :-) :-)

And if we all killfiled everyone we disagreed with, conversation
on CLA would probably cease (maybe some would think that a good
think, who knows :-) It is certainly a pity that fewer and fewer
real Ada users and implementors take the effort to follow CLA.

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Eric G. Miller]

Pot calling the kettle black?

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Kent Paul Dolan]

"Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps-nospam.net> wrote:

> Pot calling the kettle black?

Not at all; I don't use kill files, and I've never insulted someone and
then not been willing to listen to the response, nor have I ever put an
email interceptor in place after flaming someone (or, indeed, at all; it
is one of the technologies I've gone out of my way not to learn, like
forging news articles).

This is definitely a one party problem and Robert is the one emailing
tongue lashings and then throwing up barricades so he doesn't have to
live with the fruits of his ignoble nature.

I don't at all think that "gutless coward" is too strong a
characterization of such behavior, especially as this is his second
go-round doing exactly the same thing to me.

What you get of me in public, however unlovely, is exactly what you find
in private, too, I'm not leading the double life Robert is.

xanthian.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Kent Paul Dolan]

"Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps-nospam.net> wrote:

> Pot calling the kettle black?

Not at all; I don't use kill files, all of my articles are signed with
an email address that works for anyone who cares to correspond with me,
per netiquette, unlike, say, yours, and I've never insulted someone and
then not been willing to listen to the response, nor have I ever put an
email interceptor in place after flaming someone (or, indeed, at all; it
is one of the disreputable Net technologies I've gone out of my way not
to learn, likeforging news articles).

This is definitely a one party problem and Robert is the one emailing
tongue lashings and then throwing up barricades so he doesn't have to
live with the fruits of his ignoble nature.

I don't at all think that "gutless coward" is too strong a
characterization of such behavior, especially as this is his second
go-round doing exactly the same thing to me.

What you get of me in public, however unlovely, is exactly what you find
in private, too, I'm not leading the double life Robert is.

xanthian.

[Actually, the way Robert treats newbies to comp.lang.ada in public
isn't all that lovely either, and probably drives many potential Ada
converts away beyond merely the ones to whom he goes out of his way to
be rude and insulting, but that's another issue.]


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[chris.danx]

This is the biggest load of p*sh ever to be posted cla in my time here.  I
will refrain from posting any more replies to any of your posts here until
you demonstrate any signs of maturity; from what I can see, that could be a
very long time indeed.


p.s. Is it smart to slag ppl off (in the manner in which you did) in a
public group to whom you may need to turn at the future for help?

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Bobby D. Bryant]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:11:42 -0600, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

> First he gets caught following up an article without paying attention
> to where it was being posted, so he finds someone else to blame, but
> without admitting his real concern:

Pot, kettle, plonk.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Re: The inscrutable ethics of KPD and RC

[Wes Groleau]

> This isn't even the first time this has happened; this fruitcake is a
> real piece of work:

A little bit crusty, but very little fruit.  Generally
rational, and certainly has better sense than t
drag a whole newsgroup into

> a decade long battle with the mindless maggots who think group charters
> don't apply to them.

My newsreader keeps a membership roster for the
Robert Dewar fan club*  KPD just became the second
member.  (RC was the first.)

* as in "fan the flames"

-- 
Wes Troll, Oh!
http://freepages.humor.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Keith Thompson]

Kent:

I have read your article.  My reading comprehension is just fine, as
is that of most other people who have been replying to you.

Yes, one should be careful about followups to cross-posted articles --
but if something is cross-posted inappropriately, it is IMHO mostly
the fault of the person who originated the cross-posting.  Not all
newsreaders warn adequately about cross-posted followups.  Most
articles here in comp.lang.ada are not cross-posted.  If you
cross-post an article to two mostly unrelated newsgroups, even if your
article is somehow appropriate to both, any followups almost certainly
will be appropriate only to one or the other.  You owe it to your
readers to explicitly warn them about the cross-posting and encourage
them to trim the newsgroups on any followups.  You can blame other
posters all you want -- after all, they *should* have checked the
newsgroups header -- but their mistake is nearly inevitable, and *you*
could have prevented it if you weren't distracted by your "decade long
battle".

If you really want to encourage people to follow the rules, you might
find setting a good example more effective than your current strategy.

Having read your e-mail correspondence with Robert Dewar, I conclude
that he's right and you're wrong.  Furthermore, your posting of that
correspondence, ignoring any ethical issues involved in posting
private e-mail, seems hypocritical.  As you know, this newsgroup is
called comp.lang.ada.  It is for discussion of the Ada programming
language, not the ethics of Robert Dewar.  Arguably my own posting
here is equally off-topic -- but then I'm not on "a decade long battle
with the mindless maggots who think group charters don't apply to
them".

This article is posted only to comp.lang.ada.  Followups are directed
to alt.dev.null.  If you really want to post a followup to
comp.lang.ada, I'm sure you know how.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Robert Dewar]

Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote in message news:<yecbsc5gh7m.fsf@king.cts.com>...

Keith's message made me curious as to what KPD had actually said, so I
temporarily unkilled to read it.

I must say I am a bit at a loss. As far as I can tell KPD thinks
it is unethical of me to refuse to read his posts. That seems a bit
odd. I prefer to keep him in my kill file, because I don't like
having to worry about suppressing groups in responses. That's all
there is to it. 

Very curious :-)

Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar

[Robert Dewar]

Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote in message news:<yecbsc5gh7m.fsf@king.cts.com>...

Keith's message made me curious as to what KPD had actually said, so I
temporarily unkilled to read it.

I must say I am a bit at a loss. As far as I can tell KPD thinks
it is unethical of me to refuse to read his posts. That seems a bit
odd. I prefer to keep him in my kill file, because I don't like
having to worry about suppressing groups in responses. That's all
there is to it. 

Very curious :-)