From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,de40179562eb508d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A scapegoat once again :(
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 08:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <fa879aa1-cc5a-4f6b-9295-5b677b2585d0@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <9b0df7c4-e934-44ad-b388-19174df51343@r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <9f503be5-2fd3-4650-b4c6-7ca707882e70@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
 <ccf4a50b-8086-4564-8c7d-12ff637888ba@b42g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1306163733 11398 127.0.0.1 (23 May 2011 15:15:33
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:15:33 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR
 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19381
Date: 2011-05-23T08:15:33-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On May 23, 5:25=A0am, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:

>=A0I think there are at least two idiots at work here:
> one inside the project who has heard of Ada and wants to get rid of
> it, and one "expert" who doesn't know what software is and repeats
> whatever the first one said. =A0Both should be held accountable for
> their incompetence.

Then there's the journalist who repeated the words of the "expert"
without doing any checking---apparently not noticing that the expert's
background is in political science.  So I make it at least three.

                         -- Adam