LOL ok last post in this thread, but this is pathetic. He hijacks the majority of threads about Shale to say how JSF sucks compare to Struts. He even says JSF is visual basic and Struts is C++, wich I can't believe he's doesn't see as a provocative post. He's not polite and he's unrespectful to a lot of people and yet he complains when people are tired of his attitude and call him a Troll. I can't understand he didn't see that coming from miles. Sorry, Dakota, I think your attitude is really offending and pitiful. You brought this upon yourself. Email my boss if you want or sue me if you want (I hope your lawyers knows the french civil code). Well, I apologize for this post to the other people on this mailing list, I don't like to critizice a person attitude publicly but I think he's going way too far now.
On 1/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let me get this right, he _told on you_ ... as in tattletale??? That's > just repugnant and pitiful. > Did we not learn anything last year when Mark lost his job? > > -Dennis > > > > > Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 01/11/2006 11:27 AM > Please respond to > "Struts Users Mailing List" <user@struts.apache.org> > > > To > Struts Users Mailing List <user@struts.apache.org>, Rob Freda > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc > > Subject > Re: [OT] Re: Advice for Struts expert wanting to try Shale? > > > > > > > I'm thinking you _still_ don't know what "libel" is, but feel free to > sue me. > > Leave my employer out of it. As we're fond of saying, "no jumping in." > If you'd rather I posted only from one of my non-work email accounts I'm > happy to do that as well if it makes you feel better. > > If you'd like to meet in person to discuss this issue I'm happy to oblige. > > And yes, I posted this to the group rather than you personally, because: > > a) you won't talk to me directly > b) you felt so wronged that you emailed my boss rather than me > b) I just like people to know what's going on behind the scenes > > Dave > > Dave Newton wrote: > > > Dakota Jack wrote: > > > >> Just so you know, Alexandre Poitras, and others with similar > tendencies, > >> calling someone a "troll" in a professional setting having to do with > >> their > >> occupation almost certainly is an actionable per se libel with presumed > >> damages and linking the person doing the libel to any and all > >> jurisdictions > >> covered by this list. > > > > Okay, I'll bite: troll. Troll troll troll. Troll. Mind you, I'm not > > calling you the mythological (perhaps quasi-mythological) creature from > > fables, I'm calling you an internet troll as defined here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll. > > > > From time to time you post genuinely useful stuff; the rest of the time > > you take four sentences to tell somebody how little they know and > > attempt to pass it off as somehow being helpful, enlightening, or > > educational... but it's not: it's mean-spirited and demeaning. You can > > tell somebody you think they're wrong in much better ways. I have > > personally developed a slew of ways of calling people stupid that allow > > them the honor of thanking me for doing it afterwards. It's actually a > > LOT more fun that way. > > > > I don't mentor people by telling them how little they know about a > > technology or the relative merits of one versus another; that isn't > > functional. I don't teach my students by pointing out how little they > > know and making constant, somewhat passive-aggressive comments regarding > > their lack of knowledge. I am supportive and encouraging: _that's_ what > > makes an educator great, and I'm not even all that good. > > > > Of course, much of the negative commentary you write to and about people > > that disagree with you, whether or not they're correct (I, at least, > > believe you make perfectly valid points at times) might _also_ be > > construed as libel, as defined by the _American and English Encylopedia > > of Law_ as: "a malicious defamation expressed either by writing or > > printing or by signs, pictures, effigies or the like; tending to blacken > > the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, > > virtue or reputation, or to publish the natural or alleged defects of > > one who is alive, thereby exposing him to public hatred, contempt, > > ridicule or obloquy; or to cause him to be avoided or shunned or to > > injure him in his office, business or occupation." > > > > There are several interesting bits contained within this definition that > > warrant closer examination. > > > > 1) Malicious. I don't even consider _your_ negative posts malicious, I > > just consider them rude and demeaning. I don't think I've ever seen a > > truly malicious post, even including some of the more unsavory ones from > > ex-listers gone awry ;) > > 2) "[...] impeach the honesty, integrity [...]" If anyone should tread > > lightly in this area it would have to be those that question the motives > > of certain developers regarding certain technologies that some of us may > > or may not like or approve of. > > 3) If a post here ever caused anybody to be exposed to "public hatred, > > contempt, ridicule or obloquy" I'd be impressed, as I really didn't > > think our readership was that high. > > 4) "[...] cause him to be avoided or shunned or to injure him [...]" > > Have you noticed that the only posts of yours that people reply to are > > the ones that either contain useful information, questions, etc. or are > > dealing with somebody that hasn't learned to your mean, trolling ones? > > The one that has been most exposed to public contempt, at least, appears > > to be you, and the one most shunned in this (according to you) > > "professional setting" is _you_. > > > > I believe you're smart and capable yet I see your posts in my inbox like > > an accident on the side of the road: I don't want to look, because so > > often there's blood and mayhem, but I feel compelled to. Occasionally I > > am pleasantly surprised with an actual discussion. I'll admit a certain > > amount of disappointment sometimes that there isn't another wonderful > > flame-fest brewing, but I generally get over that fairly quickly. > > > >> This is not a chat room where idiocies and loose talk > >> are the common fare. This is a professional setting. > > > > This is a mailing list, not an office. This is, at best, a > > "professional-as-possible" setting. Would you use the language you use > > against those who disgree with you in a "professional setting"? _I_ sure > > wouldn't, and I wouldn't tolerate it from anybody that worked with me or > > for me, either. > > > > Quite frankly, idiocies _do_ seem to be rather common fare, but that's > > because people seem incapable of looking at documentation. > > > >> Sorry to have to discuss something other than the issues. > >> > >> > > Why apologize THIS time?! > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- Alexandre Poitras Québec, Canada
