------- Forwarded message follows -------
···
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "mroejacks" <rgmustain@att.net>
Date sent: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:07:16 -0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer ethics
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@c...> wrote:
Jean Scott has questioned my ethics in two separate posts (including
once for the "unethical" practice of finding it humorous that the
software they call "Frugal" (which means thrifty or cheap) is the
highest-priced one on the market.)
While this is accurate as far as it goes, it is simply not true from a
cost/capabilty viewpoint. FVP, which provides the same function as BDPWP
and VPSM, costs less than the two of them combined.
There are well over 100 articles archived
on bobdancer.com. Go ahead and look for duplicates. And then go look at
a sample of articles by other writers and see how many of their current
articles are rehashes of old ones.
While the exact subject discussed in many of your articles may be
different, the information supplied in many of your articles is
questionally different from others. Once someone understands penalty
cards applying that knowledge to different games could be considered a
duplicate.
If
we thought Dan was qualified to do this kind of work, we'd offer him
some money to assist us. But we don't, so we won't.
It is simply your opinion of Dan and as such is clearly a personal
attack. You should have kept it to yourself.
It wasn't too many
years ago that I heard Jean quite fearful that her cover story (i.e.
she's a retired schoolteacher from the Mid-West, loving wife and mother)
would be unraveled and people would find out that much of that cover
story isn't true.
This is a personal attack of the worst nature. You throw out
something you "heard" as a fact.
I've never been seriously tempted to "out" Jean on these things.
But you just did. That's about as unethical as it gets. Not only
that, you tried to mask it as something you didn't do.
Bob, if you have eliminated these few items from your post it would have
been very good. You would have responded to the critics in a sensible
fashion and got your point across very well. I would have respected you
for it. Instead you had to slip in these trojan horse attacks. It
completely ruined the flavor of your post and I came out with the exact
opposite opinion of you as a result.
While I was open minded before, I now find your ethics in question.
Dick