Don and Vuescan

[DBM]

It is too bad that Don has such a hate and rabid dislike for Vuescan. This
newsgroup use to be a very informative and beneficial forum for people
wanting to learn film/photo scanning with flatbed and film scanners. Since
Don and Ed had their spat a year or so ago, this newsgroup has degenerated
into a hate and name calling forum. I believe that Don has caused many
people that use to contribute to this newsgroup to go somewhere else. Many
of the posts that are now added to this newsgroup are Don condemning Vuescan
and those that believe Vuescan gives outstanding results. That is, post
are now more rant, rave and hate than adding to anyone's knowledge. I feel
the quality of the information posted has deteriorated significantly. Can
we not stop the hate and get back to providing useful information?

Maybe this newsgroup should be renamed 'Don's hate for Vuescan.' Then a new
newsgroup be created that gets back to providing useful advise and counsel.

DBM

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

It is too bad that Don has such a hate and rabid dislike for Vuescan.

*sigh*

It takes two to tango. Don is a troll. The usual rules apply.

Everybody who still acknowledges him or engages in any kind of exchange
with this wanker becomes himself a part of the problem.

Ralf

 

[Dan M]

I agree with that. I'm just glad that EH persists in developing Vuescan
despite such acrimony from a few users.

Personally, I've never been unhappy about purchasing the program. Most
of the time it works beautifully for me -- I like the results, so I use
it.

Use it or lose it -- if an individual has nothing helpful to offer,
then he or she should move on to something else.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

DBM ([email protected]) wrote in

It is too bad that Don has such a hate and rabid dislike for Vuescan.
This newsgroup use to be a very informative and beneficial forum for
people wanting to learn film/photo scanning with flatbed and film
scanners. Since Don and Ed had their spat a year or so ago, this
newsgroup has degenerated into a hate and name calling forum.

No it has not.

First there is a load of useful information that has nothing at all to
do with VueScan, and second some of Don's posts that *do* mention
VueScan are not hate or name calling at all.

I came here after reading through archives and knowing already that Don
doesn't like VueScan - but my question was about VueScan and I fully
expected him to jump in. As it turns out, he did, and actually gave
valuable and balanced advice. As I see it, it all depends on how you
pose your question or make your statement.

I believe that Don has caused many people that use to contribute to
this newsgroup to go somewhere else.

Possibly (I can't see who isn't here now but was before I started
reading) - but I *came* here. The attendance of most newsgroups changes
all the time and that is a good thing.

Many of the posts that are now added to this newsgroup are Don
condemning Vuescan and those that believe Vuescan gives outstanding
results.

So - why repeat yourselves? I simply ignore those posts and read (and
possibly save) the ones that matter.

That is, post are now more rant,
rave and hate than adding to anyone's knowledge. I feel the quality
of the information posted has deteriorated significantly. Can we not
stop the hate and get back to providing useful information?

Of course - simply don't react to any post that is either pro or con
VueScan without balance. Don't continue threads that go along the same
path repeatedly, and save a bit of bandwidth.

And keep making the posts that do provide useful information - they
haven't stopped and there's no reason why you should.

Maybe this newsgroup should be renamed 'Don's hate for Vuescan.'

Bull. Look through the subjects of the recent posts - just how many
really are about VueScan?

Then a new newsgroup be created that gets back to providing useful
advise and counsel.

This group already does that, which is why I came here and intend to
stay. Simply ignore the posts that don't and those threads will soon
peter out instead of repeating themselves endlessly.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Ralf R. Radermacher ([email protected]) wrote in

It takes two to tango. Don is a troll. The usual rules apply.

It takes (at least) TWO trolls to continue a useless (sub)thread.

 

[Evo2Me]

It takes (at least) TWO trolls to continue a useless (sub)thread.

Your first message regarding the usefulness of Don's posts sounded
like a serious and earnest appraisal based upon the one or two points
he may accidentally have gotten right over the years.

This one clearly shows you must either be a spouse of Don's or you are
the same donning other colours.

I completely concur with the first post of this thread, it would be
nice to lay down the weapons and try to be helpful for a moment. The
solution brought forward by Ralf isn't bad either, just ignore.

Currently the trouble is that don an verse his missionary statements
in a way letting many "newbies" think he knows what he writes about.
Well, he doesn't.

Don has been asked to proof his superior skills in digitising film and
never came up with it. He has enough time to post quite sophisticated
(granted) hate attacks against someone who isn't even around anymore
but he never has the time to actually scan and show.

Unfortunately, due to his writing style, someone or other has to show
the deficiencies in his argumentation - which leads to long, pointless
threads, flaming and me reading more of him than I want. My filter can
only save me from Don's original drivel.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

So - why repeat yourselves? I simply ignore those posts and
read (and possibly save) the ones that matter.

That would be good advice, if it weren't for newbies that are being
deliberately misinformed by the likes of a certain troll.

Newsgroups being what they are, a kind of community of people with
shared interests and seeking/sharing information, also means that
spreading deliberate misinformation is an insult to the
kind/helpful/knowledgable people who donate their time and expertise
for free.

SNIP

Of course - simply don't react to any post that is either pro
or con VueScan without balance. Don't continue threads that
go along the same path repeatedly, and save a bit of bandwidth.

Again, in principle I agree but uncorrected misinformation will not
benefit newbies, and it will drive the knowledgable away in persuit of
more useful/fun things to do, leaving the others guessing.

Bart

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Evo2Me ([email protected]) wrote in 4ax.com:

Unfortunately, due to his writing style, someone or other has to show
the deficiencies in his argumentation - which leads to long, pointless
threads, flaming and me reading more of him than I want. My filter can
only save me from Don's original drivel.

Why would someone "have to" show it repeatedly when apparently it's been
done already? Just ignore, don't repeat yourself.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Bart van der Wolf ([email protected]) wrote in [email protected]:

Again, in principle I agree but uncorrected misinformation will not
benefit newbies, and it will drive the knowledgable away in persuit of
more useful/fun things to do, leaving the others guessing.

I'm a newbie myself - but I can read and draw my own conclusions. I came
here *already* knowing the controversy surrounding VueScan - and fully
intending to ignore useless repetition.

You could give other newbies the benefit of the doubt and assume they can
read (like I can), unless they themselves show they are misinformed or
have misunderstood something.

 

[Don]

That would be good advice, if it weren't for newbies that are being
deliberately misinformed by the likes of a certain troll.

You are correct but you should not refer to yourself as a troll. ;o)

However, I do agree that your uncritical praises of Vuescan
deliberately misinform newbies which is why a calm and objective
evaluation is essential.

For example, you should come clean about not using Vuescan yourself to
scan because of all the bugs:

Unfortunately, to date VueScan is not capable of scanning the Raw data
with a linear gamma...

Don.

 

[Don]

Ralf R. Radermacher ([email protected]) wrote in


It takes (at least) TWO trolls to continue a useless (sub)thread.

You'll note that I don't engage in this even though they try their
worst to provoke me. However, pointless name calling and abuse is
meaningless to me. I only comment on messages with content.

Also, I'm sure you don't have the time or the interest in reading the
archives about all this nonsense so, a short summary. Because he is
quite typical let's use Ralf as an example of "Vuescan Taliban" (not
to be confused with reasonable Vuescan users).

He was one of the most offensive people and yet, once his intentions
became clear, I have never responded to his provocations. The more I
ignored them, the more abusive he got.

And then, following months of "defending" Vuescan, Ralf had a violent
outburst *against* Vuescan because the author send him an abusive
message after Ralf himself complained about Vuescan bugs!

This contradiction is quite common among "Vuescan Taliban"
illustrating what I've been saying all along. All that fury is really
aimed at Vuescan because of all the bugs which make them so angry and
they vent by "shooting the messenger".

I have also repeatedly invited anyone who doesn't want to read my
messages to filter them out (i.e. my email will not change) but they
just can't help themselves (as Bart frequently demonstrates) even
though I don't respond to abuse and obscenities...

Finally, the "Vuescan Taliban" thinks this group is theirs even though
many reasonable people tried telling them otherwise. Of course, a
reputable software manufacturer would provide a forum on their site.

And then on top of all that I even pointed out that there is an actual
Vuescan group (which I don't read!):

alt.comp.periphs.scanners.vuescan

But the "Vuescan Taliban" insist on staying here and trying to pick a
fight - which pretty much says it all...

I expect they'll attack you next. It started already... :-(

Don.

 

[Don]

Evo2Me ([email protected]) wrote in 4ax.com:


Why would someone "have to" show it repeatedly when apparently it's been
done already? Just ignore, don't repeat yourself.

Evo2Me is as bad as Ralf was. For a while all he posted were abusive
one-liners trying to pick a fight.

Then he got fed up with Vuescan because it was inferior and returned
to his scanner's native software.

It's the traditional "Vuescan Taliban" pattern:

- Anger at Vuescan
- Express this anger by attacking objective Vuescan critics
- Abandon Vuescan because it's just too inferior/buggy/unreliable
- Continue trying to pick a fight with objective Vuescan critics...

Don.

 

[Don]

I'm a newbie myself - but I can read and draw my own conclusions. I came
here *already* knowing the controversy surrounding VueScan - and fully
intending to ignore useless repetition.

You could give other newbies the benefit of the doubt and assume they can
read (like I can), unless they themselves show they are misinformed or
have misunderstood something.

Bingo!

Don.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

You could give other newbies the benefit of the doubt and assume
they can read (like I can), unless they themselves show they are
misinformed or have misunderstood something.

Good for you, if you think you can untangle misinformation from the
real thing.
I doubt all newbies are as clever as you.

Bart

 

[Evo2Me]

Why would someone "have to" show it repeatedly when apparently it's been
done already? Just ignore, don't repeat yourself.

1. Because not everybody is as brilliant as you.
2. Because virtually nobody nowadays reads all back messages.
3. Because virtually no server retains all messages forever.
4. As I and Bart laid out, Don is one of the better educated (perhaps
even mature) "trolls"* being able to make his posts look as genuine
concern with real issues and arguments. If you are on the look for
quick information you don't have time to analyse every post for valid
arguments, correctly executed arguments, let alone facts.

I, for my part, ignore Don himself, but I still see what he writes
when I see the answers of others, which I still mostly ignore - except
for the cases of metadiscussions like this.

Ignoring someone spreading false information is neither good for the
welfare of all nor for ones own psyche. The same, BTW, holds for
politics: Ignoring a (would-be) dictator doesn't help, you have to go
against him.**

The politics part of this message is only for illustrational purposes,
I do not (honestly) compare the object of our discussion with a
dictator, abstract or concrete.



*Note my deliberate use of modal quotation marks, Don does not fit the
usual definition of troll, and I don't see him as one.
**Best examples in the 20th century are Adolf Hitler and Josif Stalin.

 

[Roger]

SNIP

Good for you, if you think you can untangle misinformation from the
real thing.
I doubt all newbies are as clever as you.

Computers have been my profession for years and I have my degree in
the field and a minor in art/Photography, if that means anything which
it probably doesn't. I've taught at the college level while working
as a GA and I've had a strong presence on the net since 96.

From what I've seen, the "average" newbie is completely clueless as
are no few "old timers". If they weren't they'd quit using HTML posts
and e-mail as well as shutting off all the automatic features in mail
and news readers. They would also realize that rather than accepting
attachments only from people they know as they'd never send them a
virus, that is the place from which they are most likely to receive
them. Fortunately I do believe, as in real life, they *usually* take
what they see on news groups with a grain of salt, but they don't have
the faintest idea as to how much salt to put on which posts.

This is Usenet and any of us can be anything, or any one. Only by
following a particular news group, or poster on different groups can a
person get a feel for their credibility, knowledge, and integrity. As
I said in an earlier post, you can make 100 well thought out,
knowledgeable posts, but it only takes one or two outstanding ones in
left field to ruing the credibility. Credibility; so difficult to
build and so easy to lose.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Evo2Me ([email protected]) wrote in

1. Because not everybody is as brilliant as you.

I'm not though I am reasonably intelligent.

2. Because virtually nobody nowadays reads all back messages.

Point them to what they've missed if it's obvious they missed somethnig.

3. Because virtually no server retains all messages forever.

Google groups does. That where I read a lot before heading over here.

4. As I and Bart laid out, Don is one of the better educated (perhaps
even mature) "trolls"* being able to make his posts look as genuine
concern with real issues and arguments. If you are on the look for
quick information you don't have time to analyse every post for valid
arguments, correctly executed arguments, let alone facts.

Don doesn't only talk about VueScan. I learned a lot in the short time
I've hung around here - much of it from him, most of it totally
unrelated to Vuescan.

I, for my part, ignore Don himself, but I still see what he writes
when I see the answers of others, which I still mostly ignore - except
for the cases of metadiscussions like this.

If you ignore him then you also don't know what valuable comntributions
he's making - not everything is quoted in every reply (and shouldn't
be).

Ignoring someone spreading false information is neither good for the
welfare of all nor for ones own psyche. The same, BTW, holds for
politics: Ignoring a (would-be) dictator doesn't help, you have to go
against him.**

There's no politics here and Don isn't a dictator nor does he show any
signs of aspiring to be one. And I don't think this NG is about
"erlfare" either unless I have missed a few relevant posts.

The politics part of this message is only for illustrational purposes,
I do not (honestly) compare the object of our discussion with a
dictator, abstract or concrete.

Then why mention it at all? You're pretty insulting by bringing this up.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

You'll note that I don't engage in this even though they try their
worst to provoke me.

You just did.

 

[Djon]

Unmoderated groups seem inevitably to self destruct, but they stimulate
moderated groups which are long-lived.

A moderated group, specifically on Yahoo called something like
"Vuescan" or "Vuescan User Group " would be useful.

I don't want to do the start up work, but I'd participate as one of
the moderators. I don't have technical depth beyond utilitarian,
software-wise, but I do make fairly subtle use of Vuescan and I have a
great deal of experience with traditional photography at a professional
level.

A question about one's primary interest (photography Vs technology Vs
lonliness) would be a useful "signup" question on Yahoo.

Comparable well-moderated Yahoo groups exist for Qimage and for
Quadtone/MIS/Epson...when lonely people start to damage them, the
moderator gives them a warning and watches for improvement or simply
terminates them.

Don will stink up this thread, so we should all watch Yahoo for signs
of a new moderated Vuescan group...I won't be starting it, but I'm
hopeful.

 

[Roger]

Although this is drifting wayyyy of topic:

Unmoderated groups seem inevitably to self destruct, but they stimulate
moderated groups which are long-lived.

Here our experiences differ.

A moderated group, specifically on Yahoo called something like
"Vuescan" or "Vuescan User Group " would be useful.

I don't want to do the start up work, but I'd participate as one of
the moderators. I don't have technical depth beyond utilitarian,
software-wise, but I do make fairly subtle use of Vuescan and I have a
great deal of experience with traditional photography at a professional
level.

After this many years on the net the only place I've found that's
legitimate for moderated groups are "professional research groups", or
academic groups.

I've seen all to many groups add a moderated group only to see the
moderated group eventually end up very one sided with dissenting views
squelched.

So far, of the 30 some newsgroups I've followed none have failed. They
cycle as does CPS. Different groups have different cycles and nearly
all have at one time or another had trolls, kibitzers, harassment, and
even stalking to the local level. One even had an overt death threat
which disappeared in short order. So did the poster. Still, every one
of those groups recovered.

A question about one's primary interest (photography Vs technology Vs
lonliness) would be a useful "signup" question on Yahoo.

Comparable well-moderated Yahoo groups exist for Qimage and for
Quadtone/MIS/Epson...when lonely people start to damage them, the
moderator gives them a warning and watches for improvement or simply
terminates them.

I simply avoid moderated groups and no longer bother with them and I
have found the content to eventually end up far too biased with no one
even allowed to have much a dissenting opinion. I got tired of
reading the same old *stuff* from a few regulars. There are groups
that need to be moderated, but I don't see CPS as one of them.

I do belong to several reflectors, but those are a tad different and
on specific topics, yet they still drift at times.

For me the best moderator is just a kill file and let people speak
their piece. To me that is one of the great things about the use
groups.

As I mentioned before, the average newbie and probably a good
percentage of regular users on newsgroups are clueless when it comes
to computers and the net. They are clueless as to where to find
things. Even when moderated groups that cater directly to their
questions exist, they are far more likely to end up on the un
moderated versions. They are lucky to find a group that is even close
to the topic. Only with experience will they find the more specific,
moderated, or topic specific groups.

Don will stink up this thread, so we should all watch Yahoo for signs
of a new moderated Vuescan group...I won't be starting it, but I'm
hopeful.

I surely hope not. I'd like to see the regulars stay here and the
rest learn how to use kill files. There are already too many special
groups.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com