On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:02:07 -0700, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

No, I don't!

I just blacklist people who keep complaining and reporting problems.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick



A few examples of complaints I ignore because many I just can't fix:

On 2 Apr 2004 15:24:58 -0800, mailing@numerixtechnology.de (Elisabeth
Schmitz) wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:07:15 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:47:01 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:48:48 -0500, Alex Stols <alex_stols@xs4all.nl>
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:51:50 -0500, "Matthew Dranchak"
<mdranch@snip.net> wrote:

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:39:56 -0600, Alex Stols <Alex Stols> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:58:09 +0200, "Jouko Vierumäki"
On 4 Jan 2005 18:25:16 -0800, mendel_leisknospam@hotmail.com wrote:

On 17 Jan 2005 18:44:05 -0800, mendel_leisknospam@hotmail.com wrote:

On 18 Feb 2005 18:00:06 -0800, Joe_Nanaimo@hotmail.com wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:37:58 -0800, Andrey Tarasevich
<andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 4 Apr 2005 15:03:19 -0700, "pahtspix" <pahts@comcast.net> wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 22:05:15 -0700, Andrey Tarasevich
<andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:59:50 +0100, "John" <warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

On 10 Aug 2005 05:55:19 -0700, "Mendel Leisk"
<mendel_leisknospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:27:07 +0100, "John"
<warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 10 Aug 2005 19:27:37 -0700, "Mendel Leisk"
<mendel_leisknospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 12 Oct 2005 19:40:18 -0700, "DenverDad"
<the_applegates@comcast.net> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 00:20:48 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

On 3 Dec 2005 07:51:48 -0800, "Djon" <jtk@channelsynergy.com> wrote:

On 12 Dec 2005 16:04:52 -0800, "Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:08:59 GMT, "Maris V. Lidaka Sr."
<nemlidaka@ameritech.net> wrote:

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:44:33 -0500, Robert Feinman
<robert.feinman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:21:57 +0000, John <"john at osmium dot plus dot
net"> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:37:44 +0100, "M. Zwierzycki"
<zwier@pcand10.mpi-stuttgart.mpg.de> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:27:58 -0800, "Andy Salnikov"
<a_salnikov@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:28:02 GMT, theo <hazel_iz@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:32:00 GMT, Tom <tvanderpool@juno.com> wrote:

On 6 Mar 2006 19:02:16 -0800, "TDMedia" <TDMedia@optonline.net> wrote:

Subject: Re: VueScan stopped working as soon as I paid the $50!!!!

On 26 Mar 2006 09:22:34 -0800, "Mendel Leisk"
<mendel_leisknospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 27 Mar 2006 15:28:06 -0800, "DenverDad"
<the_applegates@comcast.net> wrote:

On 27 Mar 2006 15:38:52 -0800, "Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:12:05 +0200, Olaf <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:34:28 +0200, Olaf <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:28:54 GMT, William John Smith
<william@greenlion.net> wrote:

Ed said: "A few examples of complaints I ignore because many I just
can't fix:"

So tell the sender that it can't be fixed, just don't leave them out to dry!


On 2006-07-28 07:08:58 -0700, "Ed Hamrick" <useless @ hamstrung.com> said:

And you fixed this, so why is it in the "A few examples of complaints I
ignore because many I just can't fix" list?
A little less defensiveness and a bit of customer support will work
wonders young man.
After all you do have a superior product, just support in a
professional matter, that all most
are asking.

cheers,
William

"William John Smtih" <william@greenlion.net> wrote:
Ed didn't say anything of the sort. Some idiot (probably, but not
necessarily, Don) did.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Ed Hamrick" <useless @ hamstrung.com> wrote in message
news:2i6kc25nm1fkshtejrftkus9l64vh431l8@4ax.com...
This is another example of the way I like to slander people,
while piously claiming to only post objective facts. Where's the
objective fact of a specific person who has been blacklisted?
Why is it that I (who forged this posting) can't provide
this objective fact? Perhaps because no such person exists?

Also, the long list of problems posted by me is a nice
example of how Ed Hamrick fixes problems. All of these
problems were fixed years ago, most of them soon after
they were reported.

Why don't I post the "objective fact" of the specific
VueScan problem that hasn't been fixed years ago?
Is it perhaps because I don't know of one?

Take a look at www.silverfast.com and see the list
of problems they've had reported (and have fixed) in
the past few years. That's life with software.

And amusingly, one of the postings quoted here,
with a title of Vue-SCAM was actually written by
me using the forged e-mail address
Joe_Nanaimo@hotmail.com! I love stirring things
up and forging postings.

Don

"William John Smtih" <william@greenlion.net> wrote in message
news:2006072811243143658-william@greenlionnet...
That was in a forged posting from me, it wasn't written by Ed
(obviously).

Ed isn't a young man (take a look at his site) and he isn't at all
defensive. He seems like a nice guy by e-mail. He tells me that
he's answered 50 to 100 e-mails every day for almost 10 years.

Don

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

Who's "me" and how can you be so sure it wasn't written by Ed?

I of all people should know best how bug ridden Vuescan is.

Bart, stop spreading false rumors about Vuescan with your fake
messages!

My brother is a real lawyer (you know, the kind that practices in
front of real judges, if you live in Texas you've seen him on TV, wins
most cases) and his patience is at an end.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 08:50:42 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

Don't blame Don (the real one). He's innocent in all this.

The idiot (Bart with Ed's support) is the one who started faking Don's
messages in the first place. It all terribly backfiring on them but
they keep digging.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:24:13 -0700, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

Bart, Bart, Bart... You obsessively scour the quotes for imaginary
pseudonyms but miss the real stuff.

Read below. Weep. And then talk to Mendel.

Don.

--- start ---

In article <2i6kc25nm1fkshtejrftkus9l64vh431l8@4ax.com>, "Ed Hamrick"
<useless @ hamstrung.com> says...
Just so you all know postings from "Ed Hamrick" is from a troll.
I've corresponded with the real Ed and he has assured me that
he has not resumed his participation on Usenet.

Serious, well-documented bugs, are usually addressed, but not
always right away. Ed puts them onto a to-do list. He could
improve his release notes to be a bit more specific, but that is
a limitation that he seems unwilling to modify.
He will reply when there is something to be learned from the
dialog.
So, many times things get fixed without him mentioning it.
Bad PR, but he still does get to most things (eventually).

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com

Fake "Don" wrote:

"From *me*"? *Me*? LOL!

You mean, from *him* (Ed). You're pretending to write this as fake
"Don", remember?

Only Ed would write: "from me"!

That's what happens when you fake other people's messages, Ed. Sooner
or later you slip up!

Oh, this is delicious. You just made my day? :-)

Don.

"Don" <phoney.email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2006072521285416807-william@greenlionnet

Sorry, that's what I mean, from him, Ed.

Bart

Fake "Don" wrote:

Signed "Bart"? *BART*?

You meant to sign that as "fake Don", didn't you?

ROTFL! I love it! :-) Stop it! You're killing me! :-)

Just when I though this couldn't get any better you topped it!

Never mind making my day, you just made my weekend! Thanks Bart and
Ed! :-)

Don.

"Ed Hamrick" <useless@hamstrung.com> wrote in message
newspimc2thoc63s9e2pkodsf49tr7svpb0v8@4ax.com...
Ed uses a real e-mail address, and he hasn't posted on
usenet in years.

Don

"Don" <phoney.email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i2jmc2dig5nr954j2ern42ikter4afarn1@4ax.com...
Yes, ask Mendel. Ask him how many e-mails he's written
to Ed and gotten a polite answer to.

Don

And again, another forged posting from me. Not even
very competantly done.

Don#

"Evo2Me" <Evo2Me@GMX.net> wrote in message
news:dqimc2hm871l94a7mh2nm5oj1kbc9o2fv5@4ax.com...

And yet again, another forged posting from me. And again,
not even competantly done.

Is there anyone reading here who doesn't think I'm
a crazy person?

Don

"Ed Hamrick" <useless@hamstrung.com> wrote in message
newspimc2thoc63s9e2pkodsf49tr7svpb0v8@4ax.com...

<robert.feinman@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
2i6kc25nm1fkshtejrftkus9l64vh431l8@4ax.com...
SNIP
That's just not true! Ever since Ed was chased away from here by angry
Vuescan users he's been posting under a number of pseudonyms.

Ed posts under pseudonyms all the time since virtually nobody else
will sing praises to a program as buggy and as poorly written as
Vuescan.

Bart

<phoney.email@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
v0jmc2pvalddbg7cal2kev24otnohgbcdg@4ax.com...
SNIP
Yes, Mendel was so "happy" he complained in pubic how he was
blacklisted.

Vindictive Ed blacklisted him because Mendel dared to complain about
endless Vuescan bugs which (you) Ed just can't fix.

Bart

SNIP

<phoney.email@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
v0jmc2pvalddbg7cal2kev24otnohgbcdg@4ax.com...
SNIP
The only one who is incompetent is you, Ed. After years and years and
years of "development" Vuescan just gets buggier and buggier.

Even I don't use it anymore because of the VueScan D-max bug, to name
one of many bugs Vuescan is ridled with.

Bart

<phoney.email@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
ppimc2thoc63s9e2pkodsf49tr7svpb0v8@4ax.com...
SNIP
No, he does not.

Ever since Ed (that is to say, you) exploded with obscenities and was
chased away from here by angry Vuescan users he's been posting under
various pseudonyms.

We need go no further than all these fake message from Don which are
written by and supported by Ed. I know because I regularly exchange
emails with Ed before faking my share.

Bart