Richard Heathfield's lie
spinoza1111
this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In the
Matter of Herb Schildt":
"Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com, but this does seem to be one such
occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never
posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives
at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it
seems that not a single article by spinoza1111 has ever been
approved. It seems to be a very successful policy."
However, a search of the comp.risks archive at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks
for "Nilges" produces this:
Volume 6 Issue 87
Illinois Bell Fire
Volume 7 Issue 45
Video Games
Volume 7 Issue 49
Social content of computer games
Volume 7 Issue 55
The Ethics of Conflict Simulation (Re: RISKS-7.49)
Volume 11 Issue 55
Four-digit address causes NYC death
Volume 11 Issue 57
re: truncation of fields (Risks 11.55)
Re: Four-digit address causes NYC death
Four-digit address causes NYC death (Nilges, RISKS-11.55)
Volume 11 Issue 60
Re: Four-digit address causes NYC death (Nilges, RISKS-11.55)
Volume 11 Issue 69
Re: Four-digit address causes NYC death (Pellett, RISKS-11.60)
Volume 11 Issue 84
Thinking like a manager (Challenger)
Volume 11 Issue 86
The RISKS of political correctness in computer science
Volume 11 Issue 87
Re: The impact of formalism on Computer Science education
Volume 11 Issue 88
Sexism, programming, and social goals
Conflicting goals (was Re: the impact of formalism...)
Re: The impact of formalism on Computer Science education
Volume 11 Issue 89
Re: Political Correctness in Computer Science
Re: The RISKS of political correctness in computer science
Re: Formalism vs. Experimentation (Pomeranz, RISKS-11.87)
Re: 11.86 -- Political Correctness (cont'd)
Volume 11 Issue 90
Political Correctness: DON'T PANIC!
Re: Formalism versus Experimentation (RISKS-11.88)
Women and computer science education
Formal-dehyde and Exper-topinion
Volume 11 Issue 91
Re: Formalism vs. Experimentation (RISKS-11.89)
Volume 11 Issue 92
Algol vs. Fortran (Nilges, RISKS-11.90)
Volume 11 Issue 93
Re: Political correctness (Nilges, RISKS-11.86)
political correctness - to PANIC or not to PANIC
Formalism and women
Volume 13 Issue 03
Re: "Miracle" computer-controlled piano teaching (RISKS-13.02)
Volume 22 Issue 44
The Total Information Awareness program is a RISK! (Edward G. Nilges)
Volume 22 Issue 45
Re: O Big Brother, where art thou? (Edward G. Nilges)
Volume 22 Issue 47
Re: O Big Brother, where are thou? (Jerrold Leichter)
Volume 22 Issue 48
Re: O Big Brother, where are thou? (Edward Nilges)
Volume 23 Issue 58
Battlefield Robotics are risk to the world public (Edward G. Nilges)
Volume 23 Issue 59
Re: Battlefield Robotics are risk to the world public (Geoff Kuenning)
Volume 23 Issue 60
Re: Battlefield Robotics are risk to the world (Edward G. Nilges)
Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by me,
or a response to my posts. Each post was diligently reviewed by Peter
G. Neumann or one of his designates.
Richard Heathfield's post was a lie made with malicious intent to
defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
Neumann's diligence, which may be contrasted with Seebach's
carelessness, was shown when I sent him a review copy of my book
"Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler", because he had graciously
assented to be interviewed by me on Dojkstra. He found errors in the
index (which I did not create) and noted them.
Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claims
that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
Like most criminals, Heathfield believes that one loses "credibility"
when one makes a mistake: but a raw large count of errors has to be
divided by contribution volume, since creative people make mistakes.
"Credibility" isn't about making "errors".
It's about basic honesty, and Heathfield's dishonesty is here most
clearly on display.
superpollo
> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
are you a judge?
spinoza1111
You know what I mean. Legal positivism is in fact the belief that
lawyers predict the outcome of cases so as not to waste time. Clients
also make this prediction. There statements that so and so is "guilty"
are made legally in an adversary system because it's the client's
right, and the lawyer's responsibility, to claim the guilt of their
opponents.
This is but one example of Heathfield's conduct. Many people here are
tired of him.
Seebach is also guilty of libel since in "C: The Complete Nonsense"
Seebach posted malicious falsehoods intended to harm Herb Schildt and
the harm occured. Having his name mocked in a childish fashion by
being transformed into "Bullschildt" caused Herb and his family
psychological distress and lost income.
superpollo
> On Dec 25, 1:19 am, superpollo <ute...@esempio.net> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 ha scritto:
>>
>>> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>> are you a judge?
>
> You know what I mean.
so. you say you would hire a solicitor in uk against rh and ps? why dont
you just go ahead with that instead of simply threaten to do so?
i dont get it, really...
bye
Argonaut
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claims
>that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
>searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
>
>It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
Have you ever, even once, followed through?
Do you think anyone takes you seriously when you have made the same
empty threats over 600 times?
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?&q=spinoza1111+libel
Results 1 - 10 of about 661 for spinoza1111 libel
Not even discussing the merits of a libel that consists of claiming
someone did not make a post.
Francis Glassborow
spinoza1111 and that came up blank. So his assertion was entirely
correct. OTOH Edward Nilges assertion:
<quote>
Richard Heathfield's post was a lie made with malicious intent to
defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
<\quote>
Is indeed libellous in that he accuses Richard not only of lying but
doing so with malicious intent.
For some reason I mote and beam come to mind. Richard along with a
number of other people that spinoza1111 insists on viewing as members of
a dark conspiracy spends a good deal of time trying to help others.
spinoza1111
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
> >Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claims
> >that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
> >searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
>
> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
The issue isn't whether I "follow through": as in the corporation or
dysfunctional lower middle class family which prepares individuals for
the corporation, ethical discussion consists of changing the subject
to something more comfortable, and changing ethical canons to
something that fit the intolerable situation in which the middle class
family or corporate employee finds themselves. It is very disturbing
to you, probably, that Richard Heathfield gets away with lying, so
let's change the subject to whether and how I "follow through".
But as it is, the first step in any legal process is settling without
lawyers and out of court. My goal here is to get Richard Heathfield to
withdraw his lie without using lawyers, then to use a lawyer to get
him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
necessary, to take him to court.
If you would like to join the complaint and possibly a miniature
"class action" group lawsuit, send me email.
I am following through in the proper way, and the issue is that a
leading figure of this newsgroup is a liar and cannot be trustworthy.
>
> Do you think anyone takes you seriously when you have made the same
> empty threats over 600 times?
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?&q=spinoza1111+libel
> Results 1 - 10 of about 661 for spinoza1111 libel
>
> Not even discussing the merits of a libel that consists of claiming
> someone did not make a post.
Wow, the delights of a detail mind. Of course, the comp.risks claim
was part of a much larger pattern (and literally thousands of posts)
in a paper trail that goes back ten years. This is only one of the
smoking guns.
spinoza1111
<francis.glassbo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Argonaut wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
> > <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claims
> >> that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
> >> searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
>
> >> It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> > Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>
> > Do you think anyone takes you seriously when you have made the same
> > empty threats over 600 times?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/groups/search?&q=spinoza1111+libel
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 661 for spinoza1111 libel
>
> > Not even discussing the merits of a libel that consists of claiming
> > someone did not make a post.
>
> Actually it is worse than that. Richard Heathfield searched for
> spinoza1111 and that came up blank. So his assertion was entirely
> correct.
No, Heathfield lied.
(1) Type "risks archive" with or without quotes
(2) In the search box labeled "search Risks" type Nilges
The result will be 37 Nilges contributions.
Heathfield does not divulge how he searched. If you type "Nilges
risks" the second hit as of today includes the text "In Risks 11.55,
Ed Nilges comments that only a few programming languages allow
completely variable-length strings." in which I am "Ed" because at
Princeton in 1991 (the era of Risks 11) my ID was ednilges@pucc.
However, it is no defense that the literal meaning of his words could
somehow mean that he used some arbitrary search method that by
accident did not get any hits. This is because the ordinary and
accepted meaning of his language to "the man in the street" or a jury
of his peers is that he as a computer "expert" (self-proclaimed) made
a better than average effort. Since Google absent censorship (which
doesn't apply in the UK) works the same way all over the world,
Heathfield is clearly lying, and doing so with malicious intent.
Now, I realize here that almost ANYTHING will be said here by him or
his friends for the same reason that many people of his type lead
lives which by any objective measure are completely bizarre despite
(and indeed in consequence of) the fact that they consider themselves
respectable, middle class people, because Job One here for Richard
Heathfield is maintaining an illusion.
>OTOH Edward Nilges assertion:
>
> <quote>
> Richard Heathfield's post was a lie made with malicious intent to
> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
> <\quote>
>
> Is indeed libellous in that he accuses Richard not only of lying but
> doing so with malicious intent.
To defend oneself is not to have malicious intent. Read Shakespeare.
Malice as in characters like Iago starts from nothing. Characters who
defend themselves are in Shakespeare heroes, not villains.
Argonaut
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 25, 2:38�am, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>>
>> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claims
>> >that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
>> >searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
>>
>> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>>
>> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>
>The issue isn't whether I "follow through":
Okay, since you avoided that question that confirms it:
Despite threatening, even promising, to sue people hundreds of times,
and it seems specifically Heathfield dozens at least, you have never,
ever actually done so.
So really, who do you think you are kidding?
>as in the corporation or
>dysfunctional lower middle class family which prepares individuals for
>the corporation, ethical discussion consists of changing the subject
>to something more comfortable, and changing ethical canons to
>something that fit the intolerable situation in which the middle class
>family or corporate employee finds themselves. It is very disturbing
>to you, probably, that Richard Heathfield gets away with lying, so
>let's change the subject to whether and how I "follow through".
>But as it is, the first step in any legal process is settling without
>lawyers and out of court. My goal here is to get Richard Heathfield to
>withdraw his lie without using lawyers, then to use a lawyer to get
>him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
>necessary, to take him to court.
But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
that.
You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
never ever carried it out.
Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR of
posts in comp.risks, not realising that only the moderator posts
messages he has received as a digest. His statement was technically
true. You have no case.
Meanwhile you claim a pass for abusing Peter Seibel in the vilest
fashion due to your own lack of care in researching a claim. And you
have kept that thread alive, despite promising to withdraw, thus
exacerbating it.
One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
retainer, and then you'll be toast.
Seebs
> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
> retainer, and then you'll be toast.
I have not actually talked to the lawyer I have on retainer about this.
Well, wait. That's not true. I have talked with him about it several
times, but not in any official capacity, rather, in the general way that
I update him on all hilarious Usenet kookery.
Long story short, I've been through this one before; it would be
a mug's game to try for a defamation case against someone who has such
absolute and complete non-credibility. If Spinny could make it through
a week or so of posting without directly contradicting himself or posting
a conspiracy theory sufficiently ludicrous to get rejected by the Weekly
World News as "unrealistic", maybe there would be some point. As is,
he is, like them, "purely for entertainment".
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-25, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
>
> > One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
> > retainer, and then you'll be toast.
>
> I have not actually talked to the lawyer I have on retainer about this.
> Well, wait. That's not true. I have talked with him about it several
> times, but not in any official capacity, rather, in the general way that
> I update him on all hilarious Usenet kookery.
This isn't "hilarious Usenet kookery". I am an Apress author and a
programmer with thirty years of experience who now works as a teacher,
and I am being defamed by you and Richard. As an Apress author, I
worked 12 hours a day at the YMCA with no money coming in to establish
a reputation associated with my name, and each time you refer to me as
a "moron" and a "kook" you're committing an actionable form of
vandalism. The law lets you make a case but your own self-confessed
educational deficiencies (no formal training in the field) causes you
to resort to personal attacks.
>
> Long story short, I've been through this one before; it would be
> a mug's game to try for a defamation case against someone who has such
> absolute and complete non-credibility. If Spinny could make it through
As I have said, "credibility" is not "not making errors". It is
whether you lie. You saw, I am convinced, that Richard was lying for
if he'd searched with minimal competence he would have found 37
comp.risks posts. Nonetheless you approved the post as well as the
post that unnecessarily involved Peter Seibel in this mess.
We can settle this matter out of a court of law and without lawyers,
but that requires a behavioral change and an apology from you.
> a week or so of posting without directly contradicting himself or posting
I contradict myself because I am large, and contain multitudes.
Whereas in saying that "these are the known errors" in "C: The
Complete Nonsense" and "there are more" you contradict yourself,
period.
> a conspiracy theory sufficiently ludicrous to get rejected by the Weekly
> World News as "unrealistic", maybe there would be some point. As is,
> he is, like them, "purely for entertainment".
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
spinoza1111
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
How can you be so certain? All you know, in fact, is that today,
little corporate dweebs, as such, have no effective access to the
courts. But in fact, effective lawsuits are brought all the time which
change power relationships. For example, Israeli Foreign Minister
Tzipi Livni is unable to travel to Britain because an ordinary little
London firm sued for her arrest under international law. This firm's
day to day business is quite different: it is defending Moslem youth
against British police brutality, and helping Islamic people
immigrate. But it also brings "big" cases.
Sure, as little corporate dweebs per se, people don't sue, because
they can lose their jobs. However, those of us who've exited the
matrix know how to function outside the air supply.
I think (having done so on unrelated matters) that bringing a legal
process up is difficult and I believe that like abortion it should be
safe, legal, and rare. That's why I'm asking for a "settlement"
without using a lawyer: that's why I am asking Richard and Peter to
apologize for the comp.risks claim.
>
> You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
> never ever carried it out.
>
> Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR of
> posts in comp.risks, not realising that only the moderator posts
> messages he has received as a digest. His statement was technically
> true. You have no case.
It may have been designed to be technically true by someone who trusts
the boneheaded, junior college graduate stupidity of programmers.
Heathfield may have planned to make a claim using the words "seemed"
after discovering that I occur in comp.risks as a variant of the Sokal
hoax. Stupid and evil people often either pull such stunts, or re-
present their stupid errors as deliberate stunts after the fact,
because stupid and evil people don't realize that "errors" don't lose
you credibility: lying and dishonesty does.
But: Kenny and "Richard" have both pointed out that the thugs here act
as if a statement has only one possible interpretation...something
that's not true even in C as we know. They tacitly and without
argument select the interpretation most favorable to their case.
Here it's that Richard innocently only searched for Nilges as the
author of an entire comp.risks posting when comp.risks has been around
for a long time, where it is well-known even to newbies, and where
Richard claims expertise as an Internet user.
But a court of law would use a different interpretation. It is
incapable of deciding Richard's final intention, but the stunt has all
the appearances of a malicious falsehood and not an innocent mistake.
Richard and Seebach are trying to discredit me by representing me as
an isolated person without access to a moderated group, and they wish
to prove that Peter Neumann reacts to my comments on "risks to the
public" in the way they react to my comments on C. This is because
neither are competent in their positions; Richard is not a competent
programmer and Seebach is apparently a script kiddie who writes on
computer science with no academic training and a semiclerical job.
Unfortunately, Peter Neumann, who I have never met in person but with
whom I have spoken on the phone, examined submissions from me to
comp.risks and allowed these to go forward, based on a much larger
volume of input. Maliciously, they need to disprove this, and they
have lied to do so.
>
> Meanwhile you claim a pass for abusing Peter Seibel in the vilest
> fashion due to your own lack of care in researching a claim. And you
> have kept that thread alive, despite promising to withdraw, thus
> exacerbating it.
Trust me, when I was attacking Seibel thinking he was Seebach, I could
have been a lot more "vile". What was your verbal SAT? You seem to
lack some reading comprehension skills, because I said very nice
things about Seibel's books and focused on what was in actuality
Seebach's behavior.
>
> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
> retainer, and then you'll be toast.
Hey, maybe I already am in the sense that I have decided to leave the
programming field, owing to the shithead factor. But toast has rights.
Toast can work as an unpaid paralegal in a London law firm
specializing in reputation management.
You people think you can shit on people here until Kingdom Come for
the same reason Augusto Pinochet and Tzipi Livni thought they could go
to London to shop. You think things will just go on as before.
But, an experiment at MIT showed that even "intelligent" MIT graduate
students thought that if the water filling a bathtub with an open
drain was reduced the bathtub wouldn't overflow. They didn't realize
that in most cases, mathematically, it needs to be shut off. That's
because they didn't realize that the water going down the drain would
back up when it came to the first bottleneck in the plumbing, making
the net carrying capacity of the drain less than its "official" value.
This experiment was used to show how people in the West think that
they can continue to use credit cards and add to global warming, and
not expect sudden "shocks" that have already occured, such as Katrina
and the credit crisis.
Here, Richard Heathfield, assisted by Peter Seebach, have been daily
adding to the net malignity of this newsgroup and slowly angering a
larger and larger number of people who would like to use it for its
intended purpose. The "shock" may well be a court case.
io_x
"spinoza1111" <spino...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:c9e60054-a473-4162...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Please, i hope the national justice is out Usenet
we have a mind, one think
and suppose to use it for see what is true from what is false
what is really important from what is not.
if all you is not agree (seen the law that states have or will have
[for example no one can criticize the local tirannus or "assessore"] )
all will be politically correct, and nobody will can speak freely
because fear of all national laws
In other words the real danger
came when **all say one thing** (false?? true??)
and the national law enforces that
not when *someone* says false thing, and *some other* says the true.
at last is this what i think, but yes i can make errors on this too,
so i can speak only for me.
Buon Natale a tutti
Argonaut
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 25, 2:17�pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>> >> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>>
>> >> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>>
>> >him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
>> >necessary, to take him to court.
>>
>> But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
>> that.
>
>How can you be so certain?
Maybe you can fool yourself.
No one else.
>Sure, as little corporate dweebs per se, people don't sue, because
>they can lose their jobs. However, those of us who've exited the
>matrix know how to function outside the air supply.
And yet -- you have not, and never will.
>> You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
>> never ever carried it out.
>>
>> Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR of
>> posts in comp.risks, not realising that only the moderator posts
>> messages he has received as a digest. His statement was technically
>> true. You have no case.
>
>It may have been designed to be technically true by someone who trusts
>the boneheaded, junior college graduate stupidity of programmers.
If you actually believe that he did it deliberately, you're the
bonehead, since he would know you would squeal like a stuck pig, as
you have. He didn't look into the unusual way that comp.risks is
organized, an oversight and nothing more.
>But a court of law would use a different interpretation.
It will never come to a court. So stop jerking off to the idea.
>> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
>> retainer, and then you'll be toast.
>
>Hey, maybe I already am in the sense that I have decided to leave the
>programming field, owing to the shithead factor. But toast has rights.
>Toast can work as an unpaid paralegal in a London law firm
>specializing in reputation management.
Yeah, sure, a law firm will let you use their resources and reputation
to prosecute your vendettas, for free. They'll be lining up for that
privilege.
>You people think you can shit on people here until Kingdom Come for
>the same reason Augusto Pinochet and Tzipi Livni thought they could go
>to London to shop. You think things will just go on as before.
Because misattributing a Usenet post is the same as murdering
thousands of people. The analogy is clear.
spinoza1111
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:13:20 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
> >On Dec 25, 2:17 pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
> >> >> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> >> >> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>
> >> >him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
> >> >necessary, to take him to court.
>
> >> But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
> >> that.
>
> >How can you be so certain?
>
> Maybe you can fool yourself.
> No one else.
>
> >Sure, as little corporate dweebs per se, people don't sue, because
> >they can lose their jobs. However, those of us who've exited the
> >matrix know how to function outside the air supply.
>
> And yet -- you have not, and never will.
How do you know, Argonaut?
>
> >> You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
> >> never ever carried it out.
>
> >> Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR of
> >> posts in comp.risks, not realising that only the moderator posts
> >> messages he has received as a digest. His statement was technically
> >> true. You have no case.
>
> >It may have been designed to be technically true by someone who trusts
> >the boneheaded, junior college graduate stupidity of programmers.
>
> If you actually believe that he did it deliberately, you're the
> bonehead, since he would know you would squeal like a stuck pig, as
Writing isn't "squealing like a stuck pig" except to Fascists,
Argonaut.
> you have. He didn't look into the unusual way that comp.risks is
> organized, an oversight and nothing more.
The problem is that he claims expertise in all sorts of low and
midlevel computer related tasks and is, I believe, a consultant on
these matters. It is quite simple to see that comp.risks is organized
differently (hint: look at the author). No, Heathfield lied with
malicious intent.
Furthermore, even if it was an oversight, it was the moderator's job
to stop the post and send Richard Heathfield a query about it. I
realize that the low standard of ethics and intelligence amongst most
"computer experts" makes them believe that they can define the
moderator's job in any way they like, especially if they volunteered
for it to pad a weak resume. But lawyers take the meaning of
"moderation" quite seriously.
>
> >But a court of law would use a different interpretation.
>
> It will never come to a court. So stop jerking off to the idea.
I don't jerk off to ideas. I jerk off to videos and pictures of girls.
You're jerking off here because you think this is some sort of game,
and it isn't.
>
> >> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
> >> retainer, and then you'll be toast.
>
> >Hey, maybe I already am in the sense that I have decided to leave the
> >programming field, owing to the shithead factor. But toast has rights.
> >Toast can work as an unpaid paralegal in a London law firm
> >specializing in reputation management.
>
> Yeah, sure, a law firm will let you use their resources and reputation
> to prosecute your vendettas, for free. They'll be lining up for that
> privilege.
Did I say for free? I said I'd work for them. Anyway, it's not your
business. British and American law is based on access to courts, and I
have nothing but contempt for corporate types who whisper amongst
themselves that they and people like them have no such access and
better not try. This is because they want to be authorities about lack
of authority, and tell others they have no power, just like them.
But at this time, I am trying to save myself, Richard and Seebach
money by proposing that Heathfield apologize for and admit to making a
malicious lie, and that Seebach apologize for his conduct as
moderator. Also, I want Seebach in the future to
(1) Exercise more diligence as moderator
(2) Stop calling people names as moderator
>
> >You people think you can shit on people here until Kingdom Come for
> >the same reason Augusto Pinochet and Tzipi Livni thought they could go
> >to London to shop. You think things will just go on as before.
>
> Because misattributing a Usenet post is the same as murdering
> thousands of people. The analogy is clear.
? Tzipi Livni hasn't murdered thousands of people, although she tried
to. Furthermore, if it's possible to bring such powerful people down
for what they've done, Heathfield should be a piece of cake, right?
Violating the law isn't measured by body counts. It's measured by mens
rea (the guilty mind that results from malicious intent) and the facts
(actus rea). Heathfield's mind is unknowable, but his malicious intent
is plain.
spinoza1111
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:c9e60054-a473-4162...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
I am not willing to pay the price of seeing individuals isolated and
destroyed for "free speech". I am talking about using the civil law to
stop the shit here, for I am unimpressed by a totalised "free speech"
in which the speech is so free and unconstrained that none of it takes
a risk or means anything...except the destructive criticism of
isolated and powerless individuals.
The actual result of the end of Communism and a global internet is in
some measure merely the amplification of the control of the crowd by
the worst elements of the crowd. That is: detailed supervision of
individual behavior is work that is in the interest of the dominant
class, but there's not enough people to do it. Therefore bullying is
encouraged or tacitly ignored because bullying of isolated individuals
carries out a task of domination.
I would in fact support the licensing of posters here and elsewhere
and the exclusion of people who libel others with malicious intent.
In other words: the hell with your freedom of speech. It wasn't meant
for you. It was meant for people who can think and write with some
minimal coherence.
It wasn't meant for students: it was meant for teachers. It wasn't
meant for people who volunteer to be moderators to advance their
careers. It wasn't meant for people who deliberately lie and
subsequently create confusion.
You slobs come in here and trample on it.
Argonaut
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 25, 6:14�pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:13:20 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>>
>> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 25, 2:17�pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>> >> >> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>>
>> >> >> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>>
>> >> >him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
>> >> >necessary, to take him to court.
>>
>> >> But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
>> >> that.
>>
>> >How can you be so certain?
>>
>> Maybe you can fool yourself.
>> No one else.
>>
>> >Sure, as little corporate dweebs per se, people don't sue, because
>> >they can lose their jobs. However, those of us who've exited the
>> >matrix know how to function outside the air supply.
>>
>> And yet -- you have not, and never will.
>
>How do you know, Argonaut?
>>
Put up or shut up.
>> >> You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
>> >> never ever carried it out.
>>
>> >> Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR of
>> >> posts in comp.risks, not realising that only the moderator posts
>> >> messages he has received as a digest. His statement was technically
>> >> true. You have no case.
>>
>> >It may have been designed to be technically true by someone who trusts
>> >the boneheaded, junior college graduate stupidity of programmers.
>>
>> If you actually believe that he did it deliberately, you're the
>> bonehead, since he would know you would squeal like a stuck pig, as
>
>Writing isn't "squealing like a stuck pig" except to Fascists,
>Argonaut.
Starting several threads whining about it is.
>> you have. He didn't look into the unusual way that comp.risks is
>> organized, an oversight and nothing more.
>
>The problem is that he claims expertise in all sorts of low and
>midlevel computer related tasks and is, I believe, a consultant on
>these matters. It is quite simple to see that comp.risks is organized
>differently (hint: look at the author). No, Heathfield lied with
>malicious intent.
Okay, you've proved you're an idiot.
>Furthermore, even if it was an oversight, it was the moderator's job
>to stop the post and send Richard Heathfield a query about it.
>realize that the low standard of ethics and intelligence amongst most
>"computer experts" makes them believe that they can define the
>moderator's job in any way they like, especially if they volunteered
>for it to pad a weak resume. But lawyers take the meaning of
>"moderation" quite seriously.
Lawyers again... really...
Why not ask Santa Claus to put Heathfield's head on a stick under your
tree? More likely to happen.
>> >But a court of law would use a different interpretation.
>>
>> It will never come to a court. So stop jerking off to the idea.
>
>I don't jerk off to ideas. I jerk off to videos and pictures of girls.
>You're jerking off here because you think this is some sort of game,
>and it isn't.
Of course it's a game. You're just trying to score points aginst your
enemies. What real world impact do any of your campaigns have? None
at all.
>> >> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
>> >> retainer, and then you'll be toast.
>>
>> >Hey, maybe I already am in the sense that I have decided to leave the
>> >programming field, owing to the shithead factor. But toast has rights.
>> >Toast can work as an unpaid paralegal in a London law firm
>> >specializing in reputation management.
>>
>> Yeah, sure, a law firm will let you use their resources and reputation
>> to prosecute your vendettas, for free. They'll be lining up for that
>> privilege.
>
>Did I say for free? I said I'd work for them.
And I say, no you won't. Never.
> Anyway, it's not your
>business. British and American law is based on access to courts, and I
>have nothing but contempt for corporate types who whisper amongst
>themselves that they and people like them have no such access and
>better not try. This is because they want to be authorities about lack
>of authority, and tell others they have no power, just like them.
Oh, I believe that people can and do go to court. Just not you. And
the idea of a geriatric American finding work as an intern in a London
legal firm and use it to launch his revenge on the c.l.c cabal is
even more ludicrous than your usual fantasies.
spinoza1111
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:47:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 25, 6:14 pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:13:20 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
> >> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 25, 2:17 pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
> >> >> >> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> >> >> >> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>
> >> >> >him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
> >> >> >necessary, to take him to court.
>
> >> >> But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
> >> >> that.
>
> >> >How can you be so certain?
>
> >> Maybe you can fool yourself.
> >> No one else.
>
> >> >Sure, as little corporate dweebs per se, people don't sue, because
> >> >they can lose their jobs. However, those of us who've exited the
> >> >matrix know how to function outside the air supply.
>
> >> And yet -- you have not, and never will.
>
> >How do you know, Argonaut?
>
> Put up or shut up.
I prefer for the reasons stated until Heathfield recovers from his
Yuletide excesses and crawls back in here, and, in a sudden spirit of
Repentance, admits he was wrong and begs my pardon. As I've told you,
locus standi should be safe, legal and rare, but it's my
responsibility to settle man to man before engaging a solicitor to
take his house.
Your view is a part of social control. Elites want in fact to destroy
locus standi, so they encourage little shits to say that lawyers are
too expensive for the likes of 'umble folk, beggin' yore pardon,
m'lud.
Since elites can't hire enough cops to control people, people have to
internalize social control. It used to be through rigid character
armor of the sort inculcated in basic training, but today it's "cool"
and a sort of hopeless knowingness which declares certain things
impossible.
>
> >> >But a court of law would use a different interpretation.
>
> >> It will never come to a court. So stop jerking off to the idea.
>
> >I don't jerk off to ideas. I jerk off to videos and pictures of girls.
> >You're jerking off here because you think this is some sort of game,
> >and it isn't.
>
> Of course it's a game. You're just trying to score points aginst your
> enemies. What real world impact do any of your campaigns have? None
> at all.
That's not true. These posts get an excellent response in terms of
sheer volume, and a significant number of people like them, given the
low level of intellect attracted to this facility.
>
> >> >> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
> >> >> retainer, and then you'll be toast.
>
> >> >Hey, maybe I already am in the sense that I have decided to leave the
> >> >programming field, owing to the shithead factor. But toast has rights.
> >> >Toast can work as an unpaid paralegal in a London law firm
> >> >specializing in reputation management.
>
> >> Yeah, sure, a law firm will let you use their resources and reputation
> >> to prosecute your vendettas, for free. They'll be lining up for that
> >> privilege.
>
> >Did I say for free? I said I'd work for them.
>
> And I say, no you won't. Never.
How do you know? Anyway, perhaps something else will transpire. For
example, a class action against the large number of people Heathfield
has harmed.
>
> > Anyway, it's not your
> >business. British and American law is based on access to courts, and I
> >have nothing but contempt for corporate types who whisper amongst
> >themselves that they and people like them have no such access and
> >better not try. This is because they want to be authorities about lack
> >of authority, and tell others they have no power, just like them.
>
> Oh, I believe that people can and do go to court. Just not you. And
> the idea of a geriatric American finding work as an intern in a London
> legal firm and use it to launch his revenge on the c.l.c cabal is
> even more ludicrous than your usual fantasies.
What's ludicrous is the way people accept society's definition of who
they are. This "geriatric" American runs 20 miles a week. And I can
write sentences of complexity > small n, an ability found in Britain
only amongst the posh and immigrant.
But first, I'll accept an apology from Richard Heathfield when he gets
back in from the howling storm.
Richard Heathfield
<c9e60054-a473-4162...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111 wrote:
> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
> the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>
> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
*this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.
> but this does seem to be one such
> occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never
> posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives
> at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it
> seems that not a single article by spinoza1111 has ever been
> approved. It seems to be a very successful policy."
>
> However, a search of the comp.risks archive at
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks for "Nilges" produces this:
<irrelevant list snipped>
> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
> me, or a response to my posts.
So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
as spinoza1111? I think not.
> Each post was diligently reviewed by
> Peter G. Neumann or one of his designates.
Irrelevant, since none of them identified spino...@yahoo.com as the
author of the article within the message text.
>
> Richard Heathfield's post was a lie made with malicious intent to
> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
Clearly wrong.
<snip>
> Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he
> claims that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks
> after searching it:
Wrong. Again. There are a great many posts in comp.risks, and I have
never claimed otherwise. My claim is that I searched the Google
Groups archives for articles by spinoza1111 in comp.risks, and found
none. That claim is true.
> but, the simplest possible search provides 37
> hits.
Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
were, in turn:
spino...@yahoo.com
spinoza1111
spinoza
As you can see, I started off with a highly specific search, and
increasingly slackened it in an attempt to get at least one hit. But
hits came there none.
>
> It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
What is this? The fifth lawsuit threat? The ninth? The nineteenth? I
lost track a long time ago.
If you are silly enough to proceed with it, be aware that I am
perfectly prepared to prove the truth of my statement as written.
Since your claim seems to be that it is defamatory /because/ it's a
lie, proving the statement to be true will obviously defeat the
claim. That is all I have to say on the matter.
> Like most criminals, Heathfield believes that one loses
> "credibility" when one makes a mistake: but a raw large count of
> errors has to be divided by contribution volume, since creative
> people make mistakes. "Credibility" isn't about making "errors".
"Credibility" is a measure of the extent to which other people believe
you, which in turn is based on your track record not only of honesty
but also of cluefulness. That is why I have no concerns about my own
credibility, and no confidence in yours.
> It's about basic honesty, and Heathfield's dishonesty is here most
> clearly on display.
You have yet to demonstrate that claim - which /is/ defamatory, but
don't worry; I have no concerns about anything you say having the
slightest effect on my reputation.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Keith Thompson
> In
> <c9e60054-a473-4162...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
>> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
>> the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>>
>> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
>> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
>
> That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
> *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.
Google Groups does mangle addresses that way, in an attempt
(misguided IMHO) to prevent harvesting by spammers. There's not much
that Google Groups users can do to avoid it, other than switching
to a real news server.
[...]
>> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
>> me, or a response to my posts.
>
> So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
> separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
> unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
> without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
> as spinoza1111? I think not.
Richard, I'm not quite sure what point you're making. In spite of the
way Google Groups mangles addresses, the unmangled address is still
visible for searching.
The search I just performed can be reduced to the following URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=spinoza1111&as_ugroup=comp.risks
This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
that include postings by "spino...@yahoo.com". The fact that
"spino...@yahoo.com" is mangled to "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" when
the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.
One such posting has:
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.10...@chiron.csl.sri.com>
My guess, as I wrote before, is that you attempted to search for
articles in comp.risks whose author is "spinoza1111". There are
no such articles, since each posted article is a multi-part digest
whose author is "RISKS List Owner". The Google Groups Advanced
search doesn't recognize the headers of the individual parts as
headers; it treats them as part of the body of the full article.
[...]
>> but, the simplest possible search provides 37
>> hits.
>
> Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
> were, in turn:
>
> spino...@yahoo.com
> spinoza1111
> spinoza
>
> As you can see, I started off with a highly specific search, and
> increasingly slackened it in an attempt to get at least one hit. But
> hits came there none.
Did you enter "spino...@yahoo.com" in the Author box, or in one of
the "Find web pages that have..." boxes at the top of the search form?
[...]
Of course, nobody should mistake this for a defense of Spinny's
obsessive claim of deliberate deceipt.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>> In
>> <c9e60054-a473-4162...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>> spinoza1111 wrote:
>>> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
>>> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
>>> the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>>>
>>> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
>>> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
>> That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
>> *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.
>
> Google Groups does mangle addresses that way, in an attempt
> (misguided IMHO) to prevent harvesting by spammers. There's not much
> that Google Groups users can do to avoid it, other than switching
> to a real news server.
That would be sufficient, yes. The mangling is a known feature of Google
Groups, so there is little, if any, excuse for using Google Groups when
that known feature will change the meaning of the message.
>
> [...]
>
>>> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
>>> me, or a response to my posts.
>> So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
>> separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
>> unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
>> without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
>> as spinoza1111? I think not.
>
> Richard, I'm not quite sure what point you're making. In spite of the
> way Google Groups mangles addresses, the unmangled address is still
> visible for searching.
>
> The search I just performed can be reduced to the following URL:
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=spinoza1111&as_ugroup=comp.risks
>
> This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
> that include postings by "spino...@yahoo.com".
You were more fortunate than me, then, since I performed three separate
searches, none of which returned any hits.
The fact that
> "spino...@yahoo.com" is mangled to "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" when
> the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.
>
> One such posting has:
> Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.10...@chiron.csl.sri.com>
>
> My guess, as I wrote before, is that you attempted to search for
> articles in comp.risks whose author is "spinoza1111".
You are correct.
> There are
> no such articles, since each posted article is a multi-part digest
> whose author is "RISKS List Owner". The Google Groups Advanced
> search doesn't recognize the headers of the individual parts as
> headers; it treats them as part of the body of the full article.
Well, that certainly changes things - I must admit I never thought I'd
have to shave /myself/ with Hanlon's Razor, but it seems that this has
become one such occasion.
<snip>
> Of course, nobody should mistake this for a defense of Spinny's
> obsessive claim of deliberate deceipt.
Right.
Herbert Rosenau
wrote:
> spinoza1111 ha scritto:
>
> > defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>
> are you a judge?
Don't ask a twit! spinozza is known as a twit who dooes nothing know
about C anyway.
--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert
Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2R Deutsch ist da!
spinoza1111
Gee, you're still an asshole.
> In
> <c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> > this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
> > the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>
> > "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> > self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
>
> That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
> *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.
What an asshole.
>
> > but this does seem to be one such
> > occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never
> > posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives
> > at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it
> > seems that not a single article byspinoza1111has ever been
> > approved. It seems to be a very successful policy."
>
> > However, a search of the comp.risks archive at
> >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risksfor "Nilges" produces this:
>
> <irrelevant list snipped>
>
> > Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
> > me, or a response to my posts.
>
> So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
> separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
> unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
> without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
> asspinoza1111? I think not.
Irrevelant. You intended to maliciously lie about my credibility by
"proving" that I, as Edward Nilges or spinoza1111, who you know to be
the same person, has never been permitted to post to comp.risks.
Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
court.
>
> > Each post was diligently reviewed by
> > Peter G. Neumann or one of his designates.
>
> Irrelevant, since none of them identified spinoza1...@yahoo.com as the
> author of the article within the message text.
Your intent was to cause malicious damage to a reputation. I'm going
to contact a solicitor this week unless you post an apology and a
retraction.
>
>
>
> > Richard Heathfield's post was a lie made with malicious intent to
> > defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>
> Clearly wrong.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he
> > claims that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks
> > after searching it:
>
> Wrong. Again. There are a great many posts in comp.risks, and I have
> never claimed otherwise. My claim is that I searched the Google
> Groups archives for articles byspinoza1111in comp.risks, and found
> none. That claim is true.
It was made as part of a clear pattern of behavior, for which we have
full documentation, in which you maliciously try to damage
reputations.
>
> > but, the simplest possible search provides 37
> > hits.
>
> Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
> were, in turn:
>
> spinoza1...@yahoo.comspinoza1111
> spinoza
>
> As you can see, I started off with a highly specific search, and
> increasingly slackened it in an attempt to get at least one hit. But
> hits came there none.
You KNEW that my name is Nilges, and you KNEW that comp.risks digests
several posts in each issue. You intended a stupid lie and are a
stupid, malicious and evil man.
>
>
>
> > It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> What is this? The fifth lawsuit threat? The ninth? The nineteenth? I
> lost track a long time ago.
Bush is laughing at Dan Rather. Laugh away, fuckhead. The law takes
time.
>
> If you are silly enough to proceed with it, be aware that I am
> perfectly prepared to prove the truth of my statement as written.
But not as intended.
> Since your claim seems to be that it is defamatory /because/ it's a
> lie, proving the statement to be true will obviously defeat the
> claim. That is all I have to say on the matter.
Only to a nasty little clerk who's probably been fired from several
low level jobs in banks and insurance companies.
>
> > Like most criminals, Heathfield believes that one loses
> > "credibility" when one makes a mistake: but a raw large count of
> > errors has to be divided by contribution volume, since creative
> > people make mistakes. "Credibility" isn't about making "errors".
>
> "Credibility" is a measure of the extent to which other people believe
> you, which in turn is based on your track record not only of honesty
> but also of cluefulness. That is why I have no concerns about my own
> credibility, and no confidence in yours.
No, you're wrong. Credibility is about honesty, period, and you have
none.
>
> > It's about basic honesty, and Heathfield's dishonesty is here most
> > clearly on display.
>
> You have yet to demonstrate that claim - which /is/ defamatory, but
> don't worry; I have no concerns about anything you say having the
> slightest effect on my reputation.
It's not defamatory because it's the truth, asswipe.
spinoza1111
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> > In
> >spinoza1111wrote:
> >> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> >> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
> >> the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>
> >> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> >> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
>
> > That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
> > *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.
>
> Google Groups does mangle addresses that way, in an attempt
> (misguided IMHO) to prevent harvesting by spammers. There's not much
> that Google Groups users can do to avoid it, other than switching
> to a real news server.
>
> [...]
>
> >> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
> >> me, or a response to my posts.
>
> > So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
> > separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
> > unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
> > without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
>
> Richard, I'm not quite sure what point you're making. In spite of the
> way Google Groups mangles addresses, the unmangled address is still
> visible for searching.
>
>
> This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
> "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" is mangled to "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" when
> the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.
Prior to that time I appear as Ed Nilges at Princeton.
These are the original non-reply articles that were reviewed by Peter
Neumann or his designee under the higher standard he uses for new
content:
Illinois Bell Fire
Social content of video games
Four-digit address causes NYC death
Thinking like a manager
The RISKS of political correctness in computer science
The Total Information Awareness program is a RISK!
Battlefield Robotics are a risk to the world public
My post, "The RISKS of political correctness in computer science"
resulted in my being interviewed for an ACM film on women and
computing at Princeton. I believe this film was "Minerva's Machine"
but I do not have access to it and I do not know whether I'm in the
final release. This post also resulted, along with other posts, in my
being invited to an online panel on Internet "freedom" in 2000
alongside Mike Godwin.
I believe my post on the Total Information Awareness program was input
through Peter Neumann to Congressional testimony on this misbegotten
Bush-era boondoggle, and it may have helped to get the TIA canceled.
I say these things to demonstrate that Heathfield is motivated by envy
and malice, as the editor of one unsuccessful book from a publisher
with a very poor reputation
Using the proper search tool (swish-e at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks),
we find:
Nothing (no articles and no replies) by Richard Heathfield: he
confirms he hasn't posted to comp.risks. He may have tried and he may
have been rejected. Richard, have you ever attempted to post to
comp.risks? A rejection would explain your malicious conduct rather
nicely.
Peter Seebach (apparently Scripto Boy) quoted on Y2K, once
>
> One such posting has:
> Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.10...@chiron.csl.sri.com>
>
> My guess, as I wrote before, is that you attempted to search for
> articles in comp.risks whose author is "spinoza1111". There are
> no such articles, since each posted article is a multi-part digest
> whose author is "RISKS List Owner". The Google Groups Advanced
> search doesn't recognize the headers of the individual parts as
> headers; it treats them as part of the body of the full article.
>
> [...]
>
> >> but, the simplest possible search provides 37
> >> hits.
>
> > Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
> > were, in turn:
>
> >spinoza1111
> > spinoza
>
> > As you can see, I started off with a highly specific search, and
> > increasingly slackened it in an attempt to get at least one hit. But
> > hits came there none.
>
> Did you enter "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" in the Author box, or in one of
> the "Find web pages that have..." boxes at the top of the search form?
>
> [...]
>
> Of course, nobody should mistake this for a defense of Spinny's
> obsessive claim of deliberate deceipt.
God forbid, Spelling Rainbow (it's "deceit", Clue Boy). What you here
demonstrate is that Heathfield lied, OR made such a basic mistake that
it's questionable whether he's a functional individual, and out of the
question that he's qualified to speak on ANY technical matter
whatsoever. This not only destroys his "credibility" under his
misdefinition of "credibility" as "never making an error", it means
that he's posing here fraudulently as an expert. That in itself
wouldn't be actionable, but there are countless instances here where
he's defamed to professional reputation of people whose livelihoods
are thereby threatened, starting with Navia and Schildt.
Yes, it's time to contact a solicitor. Monsieur Navia, if you are
reading this and care to join me, send me email at
spino...@yahoo.com.
spinoza1111
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:19:45 UTC, superpollo <ute...@esempio.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> > > defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>
> > are you a judge?
>
> Don't ask a twit! spinozza is known as a twit who dooes nothing know
> about C anyway.
Rosenau posts from Nazi camp. Like quertyuiop at www.lamma.com.HK, he
bases his hatred strictly on the sort of malicious, unjustified and
unfair things that are said by Heathfield and the drunks on Lamma
Island.
>
> --
> Tschau/Bye
> Herbert
>
> Visithttp://www.ecomstation.dethe home of german eComStation
spinoza1111
> Keith Thompson wrote:
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> >> In
> >>spinoza1111wrote:
> >>> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> >>> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
> >>> the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>
> >>> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> >>> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
> >> That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
> >> *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.
>
> > Google Groups does mangle addresses that way, in an attempt
> > (misguided IMHO) to prevent harvesting by spammers. There's not much
> > that Google Groups users can do to avoid it, other than switching
> > to a real news server.
>
> That would be sufficient, yes. The mangling is a known feature of Google
> Groups, so there is little, if any, excuse for using Google Groups when
> that known feature will change the meaning of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > [...]
>
> >>> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
> >>> me, or a response to my posts.
> >> So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
> >> separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
> >> unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
> >> without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
>
> > Richard, I'm not quite sure what point you're making. In spite of the
> > way Google Groups mangles addresses, the unmangled address is still
> > visible for searching.
>
> > The search I just performed can be reduced to the following URL:
>
> > This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
>
> You were more fortunate than me, then, since I performed three separate
> searches, none of which returned any hits.
>
> The fact that
>
> > the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.
>
> > One such posting has:
>
> > My guess, as I wrote before, is that you attempted to search for
> > articles in comp.risks whose author is "spinoza1111".
>
> You are correct.
>
> > There are
> > no such articles, since each posted article is a multi-part digest
> > whose author is "RISKS List Owner". The Google Groups Advanced
> > search doesn't recognize the headers of the individual parts as
> > headers; it treats them as part of the body of the full article.
>
> Well, that certainly changes things - I must admit I never thought I'd
> have to shave /myself/ with Hanlon's Razor, but it seems that this has
> become one such occasion.
Richard, if you want to post a retraction and avoid a lawsuit, just
copy the following into a reply and write your name under it
"I apologize for my false claim that Edward 'spinoza1111' Nilges has
never been permitted to post to the moderated group comp.risks. Mr.
Nilges has posted original content to this group which was reviewed
and approved by its moderator."
Colonel Harlan Sanders
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
>court.
>
>Your intent was to cause malicious damage to a reputation. I'm going
>to contact a solicitor this week unless you post an apology and a
>retraction.
>It's not defamatory because it's the truth, asswipe.
Ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahahahahahahahahaha
Well, I'll check back in a week, 4th Jan 2010, and see who has lived
up to his word (as "sworn to God"), and who is the blowhard asswipe.
Richard Heathfield
<nonsense snipped>
> Richard, if you want to post a retraction and avoid a lawsuit, just
> copy the following into a reply and write your name under it
I can think of a much easier way to avoid a lawsuit, which is simply to
do nothing.
<nonsense snipped>
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
>
> <nonsense snipped>
>
> > Richard, if you want to post a retraction and avoid a lawsuit, just
> > copy the following into a reply and write your name under it
>
> I can think of a much easier way to avoid a lawsuit, which is simply to
> do nothing.
You've worked in a series of "banks and insurance companies" in what
TS Eliot called the twittering world. Your work hasn't meant anything
and has destroyed your spirit, so of course you believe that people
are like you: impotent. However, your malicious lie has stirred up a
hornet's nest, my friend.
I shall contact Clive Feather's friend Geoffrey Robertson for a
reference to a solicitor, which will have the side-effect of putting
the latter on notice as to how his friend or acquaintance participates
in cybernetic mob action. I have occasionally corresponded with
Robertson in the past commencing with the fact that he liked a review
of his book "Crimes Against Humanity" I'd written in 1999. He may find
it rather disturbing that his authority was invoked by Clive Feather
without his permission, before he's had a chance to investigate the
matter.
Eugene
> Gee, you're still an asshole.
> [...]
> What an asshole.
> [...]
> fuckhead
> [...]
> asswipe
Take this unprofessional filth offline please.
Rui Maciel
> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In the
> Matter of Herb Schildt":
<snip nonsense>
I wonder if you will ever amount to anything productive instead of continuously
wasting your time polluting a series of newsgroups with your trolling and series of
absurd personal attacks.
Rui Maciel
Keith Thompson
Many years of posts from "spinoza1111" strongly imply that the answer
is no, and that complaining to him about it is a waste of time.
Kenny McCormack
Rui Maciel <rui.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
(His usual. Doesn't really matter. It's all the same)
>I wonder if you will ever amount to anything productive instead of
>continuously wasting your time polluting a series of newsgroups with
>your trolling and series of absurd personal attacks.
>
>
>Rui Maciel
Appropriate change made. HTH.
Colonel Harlan Sanders
Here we are, a week later.
Have there been any developments in this "case"? Heathfield hasn't
issued the demanded retraction that I can see.
Of course, legal proceedings may have started and the participants are
wisely not mentioning it.
But I will venture to assert that actually nothing has happened on
that front (and never will).
Conclusion: Edward Nilges, aka Spinoza1111, has never and will never
carry through his promised, vowed "to God" , threats of litigation.
To make this post and thread easier to locate in future Google
searches, for Nilges will certainly keep making these threats, a
summing up in a few words for the search engines:
Edward Nilges never carries through his threats of libel.
Spinoza1111 + litigation + libel = never.
It would have been so entertaining to see Nilges make a complete fool
out of himself in court, and if he conducted himself there as he does
here, left to rot for a few weeks in a cell for contempt. But we must
be content with laughing at his antics here.
And Nilges, I won't post on this issue any more, but you can threaten
me with libel/ass kicking, etc., etc. if it makes you feel more manly.
Your credibility will remain at zero.
Richard Heathfield
Sanders wrote:
Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he
hadn't changed the subject line. It is almost always the case that
threads which attack people even in the subject line are indicators
that the attacker is a bozo, and so it's best to avoid such personal
subject lines.
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 03:06:08 +0800, Colonel Harlan Sanders
> <Har...@kfc.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>><spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
>>>court.
>>>
>>>Your intent was to cause malicious damage to a reputation. I'm
>>>going to contact a solicitor this week unless you post an apology
>>>and a retraction.
>>
>>>It's not defamatory because it's the truth, asswipe.
>>
>>Ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahahahahahahahahaha
>>
>>
>>Well, I'll check back in a week, 4th Jan 2010, and see who has
>>lived up to his word (as "sworn to God"), and who is the blowhard
>>asswipe.
>
> Here we are, a week later.
> Have there been any developments in this "case"? Heathfield hasn't
> issued the demanded retraction that I can see.
Obviously not, since there's nothing to retract. I have already said
all I want to say on the matter.
> Of course, legal proceedings may have started and the participants
> are wisely not mentioning it.
Despite many threats of libel from Mr Nilges and/or from
spino...@yahoo.com, no solicitor or other legal beagle has
contacted me over any libel proceedings whatsoever from anyone, ever,
and that includes this week.
> But I will venture to assert that actually nothing has happened on
> that front (and never will).
Put it this way - I'm not holding my breath.
> Conclusion: Edward Nilges, aka Spinoza1111, has never and will never
> carry through his promised, vowed "to God" , threats of litigation.
Well, with every threat that he doesn't carry out, his credibility
diminishes - and he has made a great many threats.
<snip>
Seebs
> Conclusion: Edward Nilges, aka Spinoza1111, has never and will never
> carry through his promised, vowed "to God" , threats of litigation.
I think the issue is that, since he posted, he has come across texts
suggesting that God may have created a universe which contains the C
programming language, and is therefore presumptively incompetent to
receive oaths.
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
Seebs
> Despite many threats of libel from Mr Nilges and/or from
> spino...@yahoo.com, no solicitor or other legal beagle has
> contacted me over any libel proceedings whatsoever from anyone, ever,
> and that includes this week.
I actually once DID get a threat from a lawyer!
It was in reference to this article:
http://www.seebs.net/log/articles/242/predatory-lending-if-you-thought-your-life-was-bad
The people whom I named as having participated in stealing $100,000 from
a brain-damaged man sent dire threatening letters, as a result of which
we were obliged to make two factual corrections in the document.
Interestingly, they were not satisfied by these changes, but no litigation
ever ensued.
> Well, with every threat that he doesn't carry out, his credibility
> diminishes - and he has made a great many threats.
By the time I saw a threat from him, his credibility was already pretty
much functionally at zero.
Colonel Harlan Sanders
<r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>In <90k2k59kj6sca6sc4...@4ax.com>, Colonel Harlan
>Sanders wrote:
>
>Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he
>hadn't changed the subject line. It is almost always the case that
>threads which attack people even in the subject line are indicators
>that the attacker is a bozo, and so it's best to avoid such personal
>subject lines.
Most newsreaders, and Google, will show it as a continuation of the
same thread from the References header.
Nilges' subject line was "Richard Heathfield's lie", I didn't want to
endorse that and thought if I was gloing to change the subject, I
might as well go all the way. That makes me a bozo? If I was taking
the high road I wouldn't have posted anything, so perhaps that's
justified.
Richard Heathfield
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:12:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In <90k2k59kj6sca6sc4...@4ax.com>, Colonel Harlan
>> Sanders wrote:
>>
>> Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he
>> hadn't changed the subject line. It is almost always the case that
>> threads which attack people even in the subject line are indicators
>> that the attacker is a bozo, and so it's best to avoid such personal
>> subject lines.
>
> Most newsreaders, and Google, will show it as a continuation of the
> same thread from the References header.
>
> Nilges' subject line was "Richard Heathfield's lie", I didn't want to
> endorse that and thought if I was gloing to change the subject, I
> might as well go all the way. That makes me a bozo?
Not necessarily, no, but it isn't a good sign. Sorry and all that. There
is almost always a better way to word such things. For example, instead
of "Richard Heathfield's lie", spino...@yahoo.com could have used
something like "Correction sought regarding claim about my comp.risks
articles". And instead of changing it to "Edward Nilges's lie", you
could either have left it alone (doing so does *not* endorse it in any
way), or perhaps changed it to something like "Usenet libel threat
deadline expires without incident".
Obviously it's up to you - but those who care about their online
reputations should be far more worried about what they themselves say
than about how others describe them.
> If I was taking
> the high road I wouldn't have posted anything, so perhaps that's
> justified.
I think you would be less open to such descriptions if you built up a
solid track record of discussing C programming. I could be wrong, but I
seem to recall that your principal focus is on rebutting personal
attacks from (mostly) trolls. Whilst that's all very well, this
newsgroup is actually supposed to be about C programming. (To some
extent I am guilty of the same thing - I seem to be posting less and
less about C nowadays, something I will try to fix.)
Keith Thompson
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:12:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he
>>hadn't changed the subject line.
> Most newsreaders, and Google, will show it as a continuation of the
> same thread from the References header.
Yes, but that's helpful only if previous articles in the thread
are visible.
My newsreader, by default, shows me only articles that I haven't
already read. Since I had already read (or discarded) all the
previous articles in this thread, all I saw was the current subject
line as if it were the beginning of a new thread. When I read the
article, I can see that it's a followup, and I can fairly easily
jump to the parent article, but from the group overview it looks
like a new thread:
[ 32: Ben Bacarisse ] 2 Re: Comparision of C Sharp and C performance
< 12: Ben Bacarisse > 1
[ 51: Colonel Harlan Sande] 5 Edward Nilges' lie
[ 67: Richard Heathfield ] 3
[ 30: Seebs ] 1
[ 21: Colonel Harlan Sande] 1
[ 14: Seebs ] 1
[ 13: James ] 1 Re: Binary search trees (AVL trees)
(Of course, a better solution would have been to stop replying in this
thread, but I suppose that ship has sailed.)
Chris McDonald
>.... (To some
>extent I am guilty of the same thing - I seem to be posting less and
>less about C nowadays, something I will try to fix.)
Thank you.
--
Chris.
jacob navia
[snip off topic polemic]
Look, here is a C group.
You do not like somebody?
Use private email, blog, whatever.
You do not like spinoza111?
DO NOT ANSWER.
Let's discuss about C ok?
gwowen
> Use private email, blog, whatever.
> You do not like spinoza111?
> DO NOT ANSWER.
> Let's discuss about C ok?
Amen. (Or "This", as the young people say).
Colonel Harlan Sanders
wrote:
I look forward to seeing you point this out to Mr Nilges next time he
steps off the path. Which he does in about 80% of his posts, so you'll
be busy.
But telling someone to shut up in a newsgroup usually has the opposite
effect, as this demonstrates.
Michael Foukarakis
> This is but one example of Heathfield's conduct. Many people here are
> tired of him.
Many people are tired of you, too. They won't sue just because you're
guilty of stupidity. Although, they probably should.
Kenny McCormack
As I've demonstrate many times, other than stupid language lawyering (*),
it is simply not possible to "discuss C" here, without being "off-topic"
by most accepted definitions of that term.
Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
of the group to that of interpersonal BS. We have merely followed their
lead.
(*) Which, although fascinating to some, it is of little interest to 95%
of the population.
gwowen
> Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
> of the group to that of interpersonal BS. We have merely followed their
> lead.
Have you tried thinking for yourself? It's not as hard as its made
out to be.
Kenny McCormack
That's rich. Who do you think it is, in this group, who thinks for
themselves? Is it the Establishment? No, of course, it never is. It
is the anti-Establishment, as it always is.
Keith Thompson
>>[snip off topic polemic]
>>Look, here is a C group.
>>You do not like somebody?
>>Use private email, blog, whatever.
>>You do not like spinoza111?
>>DO NOT ANSWER.
>>Let's discuss about C ok?
>
> I look forward to seeing you point this out to Mr Nilges next time he
> steps off the path. Which he does in about 80% of his posts, so you'll
> be busy.
I look forward to someone's response to Nilges yielding a better
result than silence would have.
Repeated requests directed to Mr. Nilges have been ignored.
I encourage you to demonstrate that you are more reasonable than
he is.
If someone throws rocks at a hornet's nest near my house, I don't
waste my time complaining to the hornets.
Colonel Harlan Sanders
wrote:
>Repeated requests directed to Mr. Nilges have been ignored.
>I encourage you to demonstrate that you are more reasonable than
>he is.
There have been more posts telling me not to post than I've made...
but at least you're less hectoring than Mr Navia.
It was always my intent to make one post on this little contretemps
and then back off. I will not be throwing any more rocks at the
hornet. But he will always find or manufacture some issue to buzz
about.
Kenny McCormack
Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
...
>If someone throws rocks at a hornet's nest near my house, I don't
>waste my time complaining to the hornets.
The regs are hornets. Indeed. Well put.
I suppose sensible people would just let them be. Myself, I prefer to
arm myself with the appropriate chemicals and try to get rid of them.
Nick
OK Kenny, I've given you a couple of weeks, and your C input has been
NULL. Join the other bozo's in the kill file.
For those who wonder why I "announce" this, it's very simple. I really
will never read anything you say ever again. If at some stage in the
future you name me in one of these obscure quasi-paranoid allusions I
will not be defending myself because I will not have read it. This acts
as a convenient public record of that.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Seebs
> For those who wonder why I "announce" this, it's very simple. I really
> will never read anything you say ever again. If at some stage in the
> future you name me in one of these obscure quasi-paranoid allusions I
> will not be defending myself because I will not have read it. This acts
> as a convenient public record of that.
Good point.
FWIW, I killfiled him ages ago. People who pick a single model of human
motivation and insist that everyone is actually living by it all the time
no matter what are always pointless, regardless of which model they picked.
The amusing part is that he apparently thinks that you can be thinking for
yourself by adopting a policy of uncritical and unthinking rejection of
everything a particular set of people says to replace uncritical and
unthinking acceptance of what they say. This is one of the cases where the
opposite of stupid is still stupid.
Ben Bacarisse
<snip>
> As is, apparently, attempting to converse with him. Unfortunately,
> once you KF spinoza1111 and everyone who can't resist him, there's not
> much to see here, or in any of the C groups, including the moderated
> one. It would appear his mission is accomplished, which I'm sure he
> enjoys immensely.
The trick is to score down all threads and sub-threads headed by a
message from the poster that you think is being disruptive. That way
you don't have to kill all posters simply because they got sucked into
replying (as I've been).
GNUS can do it, but it may be hard (or impossible) in other
newsreaders.
--
Ben.
Kenny McCormack
Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> drooled:
...
>For those who wonder why I "announce" this, it's very simple. I really
>will never read anything you say ever again. If at some stage in the
>future you name me in one of these obscure quasi-paranoid allusions I
>will not be defending myself because I will not have read it. This acts
>as a convenient public record of that.
Whatever floats your boat...
spinoza1111
> Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:12:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> > <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Sanders wrote:
>
> >> Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he
> >> hadn't changed the subject line. It is almost always the case that
> >> threads which attack people even in the subject line are indicators
> >> that the attacker is a bozo, and so it's best to avoid such personal
> >> subject lines.
>
> > Most newsreaders, and Google, will show it as a continuation of the
> > same thread from the References header.
>
> >Nilges' subject line was "Richard Heathfield's lie", I didn't want to
> > endorse that and thought if I was gloing to change the subject, I
> > might as well go all the way. That makes me a bozo?
>
> Not necessarily, no, but it isn't a good sign. Sorry and all that. There
> is almost always a better way to word such things. For example, instead
> something like "Correction sought regarding claim about my comp.risks
> could either have left it alone (doing so does *not* endorse it in any
> way), or perhaps changed it to something like "Usenet libel threat
> deadline expires without incident".
Richard, you deliberately used the wrong search technique to "confirm"
that I've not been accepted for the comp.risks group, and this was a
lie. You knew that it consists of digests of posts and you concealed
this fact.
You're the liar, and no, this issue isn't going away. I have contacted
solicitors in this matter. Do not confuse you impotence with any you
fancy in me.
>
> Obviously it's up to you - but those who care about their online
> reputations should be far more worried about what they themselves say
> than about how others describe them.
>
> > If I was taking
>
> > the high road I wouldn't have posted anything, so perhaps that's
> > justified.
>
> I think you would be less open to such descriptions if you built up a
> solid track record of discussing C programming. I could be wrong, but I
I have. I've created interesting threads on C, most recently a
demonstration that C Sharp is only ten percent slower which refuted
the claim that it is interpreted. I've documented a number of problems
in C, and I've used this language as a programmer.
You're a liar, and a thug, and the sort of person who I saw take
programming jobs precisely at that point where software no longer was
useful in getting strategic advantage, but had to be maintained in
order to keep the minimal advantage it represented. These people were
in my experience marginal people who could not hold real jobs. Their
writing and standards of logic were abominable.
spinoza1111
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:22:33 -0800, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org>
> wrote:
>
> >I encourage you to demonstrate that you are more reasonable than
> >he is.
>
> There have been more posts telling me not to post than I've made...
> but at least you're less hectoring than Mr Navia.
>
> It was always my intent to make one post on this little contretemps
> and then back off. I will not be throwing any more rocks at the
> hornet. But he will always find or manufacture some issue to buzz
> about.
Harlan, you're addicted to shoring up a marginal personality by
pretending to be the Father Who Is Never Wrong. So of course you'll
never stop.
spinoza1111
wrote:
> In article <hhsi65$t...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> jacob navia <ja...@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>
> >Colonel Harlan Sanders a écrit :
> >[snip off topic polemic]
>
> >Look, here is a C group.
>
> >You do not like somebody?
>
> >Use private email, blog, whatever.
>
> >You do not like spinoza111?
>
> >DO NOT ANSWER.
>
> >Let's discuss about C ok?
>
> As I've demonstrate many times, other than stupid language lawyering (*),
> it is simply not possible to "discuss C" here, without being "off-topic"
> by most accepted definitions of that term.
>
> Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
> of the group to that of interpersonal BS. We have merely followed their
> lead.
>
> (*) Which, although fascinating to some, it is of little interest to 95%
> of the population.
More specifically, they are in search of the person they are afraid
they've become. They aren't "programmers". Some of them are retirees,
others of them are the sort of caretakers left in meaningless jobs
after enormous "death march" software projects were completed long
ago, who are occasionally called upon to make minor changes.
My father was a smart man, for he asked me in 1971 where the jobs in
software would be once we got done. The answer of course was the
constant waves of layoffs of programmers and other middling white
collar professionals, combined with the post-Enlightenment need to
appoint a low-level demi-priesthood (complementary to the high priests
of the corporate world, the CEOs who in fact know very little, not
only about culture, science or even business, but of their own
operations), resulted in the sort of half-literate monks and vergers
and eunuchs who ceremoniously post here.
Seebach, for example, appears to have become an expert in scripting
languages because based on my own experience at Princeton (where the
slow academic decision process could never make up its mind whether
new software was needed, and where this process always decided to buy
and not make in order to evade responsibility), when you're a
programmer who wants to code but is waiting for some "study team" to
come up with some unreadable "report", you have nothing to do except
attend boring meetings and write meaningless reports. I automated
functions using Rexx on the mainframe in this downtime, and it appears
that the only programming Seebie can do consists of shell scripts he
decides to write.
These people are unable to write new code, and afraid to lest they be
subject to mockery for trivial mistakes as they subject real producers
to mockery.
Take a look at William Langiewiesche's book on Captain Sullenberger's
smooth landing on the Hudson river of a US airways Airbus.
Langiewiesche makes the point that although Sullenberger was working
at the maximum level of coolness and professionalism, the Airbus had
been designed, and programmed with software, deliberately to never
exceed its design limits, and its software made final adjustments to
Captain Sullenberger's own inputs which caused the water landing to be
as smooth as possible, something which almost eliminated panic during
egress.
[I rather doubt that the Airbus 3xx series was programmed in C.]
We've become servants of systems and as such, our job is not to fuck
up and reassure customers, bosses and clients that we won't. Based on
this, I would never as a client hire Heathfield in a programming job,
because he's a liar and makes absurd claims about the power of C, like
an airline pilot who wants to fly 707s because they give him more to
do in the cockpit.
If you want a real job, get out of programming and go to Haiti or
become a teacher.
spinoza1111
> jacob navia <ja...@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>
> >Colonel Harlan Sanders a écrit :
> >[snip off topic polemic]
>
> >Look, here is a C group.
>
> >You do not like somebody?
>
> >Use private email, blog, whatever.
>
> >You do not like spinoza111?
>
> >DO NOT ANSWER.
>
> >Let's discuss about C ok?
>
> As I've demonstrate many times, other than stupid language lawyering (*),
> it is simply not possible to "discuss C" here, without being "off-topic"
> by most accepted definitions of that term.
>
> Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
> of the group to that of interpersonal BS. We have merely followed their
> lead.
>
> (*) Which, although fascinating to some, it is of little interest to 95%
> of the population.
BTW, Kenny, "if you want a real job" wasn't addressed to you. You
might be a real programmer, the exception who proves my rule, or the
Last of the Mohicans.
Chris McDonald
>On Jan 4, 11:27=A0pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
>wrote:
Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
from nearly 3 weeks ago?
--
Chris.
spinoza1111
> On 2010-01-04, Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > For those who wonder why I "announce" this, it's very simple. I really
> > will never read anything you say ever again. If at some stage in the
> > future you name me in one of these obscure quasi-paranoid allusions I
> > will not be defending myself because I will not have read it. This acts
> > as a convenient public record of that.
>
> Good point.
>
> FWIW, I killfiled him ages ago. People who pick a single model of human
> motivation and insist that everyone is actually living by it all the time
> no matter what are always pointless, regardless of which model they picked.
> The amusing part is that he apparently thinks that you can be thinking for
> yourself by adopting a policy of uncritical and unthinking rejection of
> everything a particular set of people says to replace uncritical and
I really don't know what you're talking about, Scripto Boy. I gave you
points for being a script kiddie. I conceded that there were errors in
Schildt, only pointing out that you made similar errors :
Scripto Boy says, "the 'heap' is a DOS term"
Making real scientists squirm,
When attacking another
For making an error.
> unthinking acceptance of what they say. This is one of the cases where the
> opposite of stupid is still stupid.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Seebs
> spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
> from nearly 3 weeks ago?
I have no clue.
BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing: I was regaling
one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he suddenly
said "Wait! Is this guy Edward Nilges?"
The coworker? Chris Torek. :)
I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
-s
--
spinoza1111
> gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
> > In article <9796eb84-65bb-42e4-b403-0af23f9d9...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > gwowen <gwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Jan 4, 3:27 pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
> >>> Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
> >>> of the group to that of interpersonal BS. We have merely followed their
> >>> lead.
>
> >>Have you tried thinking for yourself? It's not as hard as its made
> >>out to be.
>
> > That's rich. Who do you think it is, in this group, who thinks for
> > themselves? Is it the Establishment? No, of course, it never is. It
> > is the anti-Establishment, as it always is.
>
> OK Kenny, I've given you a couple of weeks, and your C input has been
> NULL. Join the other bozo's in the kill file.
>
> For those who wonder why I "announce" this, it's very simple. I really
> will never read anything you say ever again. If at some stage in the
> future you name me in one of these obscure quasi-paranoid allusions I
> will not be defending myself because I will not have read it. This acts
> as a convenient public record of that.
Studs Lonigan leaves the bar, squaring his thin shoulders
Lighting a cigarette, says to his pals
Boys, I will never touch another drop
This drinking has got to stop.
I will work out at the gym
I'll stop looking at the trolley quim
And no more jerkin' off, it is a mortal sin.
spinoza1111
> >I encourage you to demonstrate that you are more reasonable than
> >he is.
>
> There have been more posts telling me not to post than I've made...
> but at least you're less hectoring than Mr Navia.
>
> It was always my intent to make one post on this little contretemps
> and then back off. I will not be throwing any more rocks at the
> hornet. But he will always find or manufacture some issue to buzz
> about.
Let me be your father, let me be
Your big brother, let me be Authority.
Chris McDonald
>said "Wait! Is this guy Edward Nilges?"
>The coworker? Chris Torek. :)
>I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
... certainly from another time!
--
Chris.
spinoza1111
>
> Look, here is a C group.
>
> You do not like somebody?
>
> Use private email, blog, whatever.
>
> You do not like spinoza111?
>
> DO NOT ANSWER.
>
> Let's discuss about C ok?
You presume, Monsieur, that these posters are adults like you. They
couldn't write a compiler if their lives depended upon it. Therefore
they specializing in finding errors and the politics of personal
destruction.
spinoza1111
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> >.... (To some
> >extent I am guilty of the same thing - I seem to be posting less and
> >less about C nowadays, something I will try to fix.)
One can only wonder why, one can only sigh
One can only say, go and sin no more.
But if you are a sailor that has fallen out favor
With the remorseless and babbling C,
You need to look within and find your shadow self.
I hold up to you like Perseus, Medusa's glass
In which you see true who you are: liar,
Incompetent, thug, and creep, and any other name
That does not disbecome my state at seat.
You can't stand the heat but you won't leave the kitchen,
For like a dog you feed on scraps, and fight with dogs
For a place to lick you ass that is closest to the fire.
Get the fuck out of here, Dickwad, you are null
You can't program and your rants are dull.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Chris.
spinoza1111
Hey, thanks Chris, for keepin' the subject line on target.
Richard Heathfield told a lie
Eddie Nilges made him cry
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111 wrote:
> > On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> > this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In the
> > Matter of Herb Schildt":
>
> <snip nonsense>
>
> I wonder if you will ever amount to anything productive instead of continuously
I wonder why you pose as a Father,
Using canned phrases unexamined,
When you know so little about me.
I am the author of a programming book,
With thirty years of experience,
Back in the day when we were allowed to get gay,
And actually write code,
Instead of sitting on bubble butts
And criticising better men.
> wasting your time polluting a series of newsgroups with your trolling and series of
> absurd personal attacks.
Use your common sense
It's called, self-defence.
>
> Rui Maciel
spinoza1111
> Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:12:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> > <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> In <90k2k59kj6sca6sc43s2lq4uc65tk0n...@4ax.com>, Colonel Harlan
> >> Sanders wrote:
>
> >> Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he
> >> hadn't changed the subject line. It is almost always the case that
> >> threads which attack people even in the subject line are indicators
> >> that the attacker is a bozo, and so it's best to avoid such personal
> >> subject lines.
>
> > Most newsreaders, and Google, will show it as a continuation of the
> > same thread from the References header.
>
> >Nilges' subject line was "Richard Heathfield's lie", I didn't want to
> > endorse that and thought if I was gloing to change the subject, I
> > might as well go all the way. That makes me a bozo?
>
> Not necessarily, no, but it isn't a good sign. Sorry and all that. There
> is almost always a better way to word such things. For example, instead
> of "Richard Heathfield's lie", spinoza1...@yahoo.com could have used
> something like "Correction sought regarding claim about my comp.risks
> articles". And instead of changing it to "EdwardNilges'slie", you
> could either have left it alone (doing so does *not* endorse it in any
> way), or perhaps changed it to something like "Usenet libel threat
> deadline expires without incident".
>
> reputations should be far more worried about what they themselves say
> than about how others describe them.
>
> > If I was taking
>
> > the high road I wouldn't have posted anything, so perhaps that's
> > justified.
>
> I think you would be less open to such descriptions if you built up a
> solid track record of discussing C programming. I could be wrong, but I
> attacks from (mostly) trolls. Whilst that's all very well, this
> extent I am guilty of the same thing - I seem to be posting less and
> less about C nowadays, something I will try to fix.)
Do.
spinoza1111
> On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
> > from nearly 3 weeks ago?
>
> I have no clue.
>
> BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing: I was regaling
> one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he suddenly
Don't have any real work to do, I see:
Another eunuch of the new world order,
Sittin' around with the guys of the office,
Having found his quota of bugs for the day,
Laughing at people, like a little boy.
> said "Wait! Is this guy EdwardNilges?"
>
> The coworker? Chris Torek. :)
>
> I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
>
> -s
> --
Richard Heathfield
> On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
>> from nearly 3 weeks ago?
>
> I have no clue.
>
> BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing: I was regaling
> one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he suddenly
> said "Wait! Is this guy Edward Nilges?"
>
> The coworker? Chris Torek. :)
>
> I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted
character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.
Seebs
> I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted
> character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.
I'd suggest the best target would be that he wears glasses. If that's
not good for a week or two of mockery, I don't know what is.
(Unless my memory's wrong and he doesn't.)
Richard Heathfield
> On 2010-01-21, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted
>> character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.
>
> I'd suggest the best target would be that he wears glasses. If that's
> not good for a week or two of mockery, I don't know what is.
>
> (Unless my memory's wrong and he doesn't.)
He does. But there's a better target for mocking Chris Torek - he
programs in C! How funny is *that*!
jamm
If you don't like C and the people who use it so much, then maybe you should
learn BASIC. And hangout with some BASIC users. You'll learn neat things
like:
10 PRINT "spinoza WTH are you talking about!";
20 GOTO 10
--
*From the 1966 TV series:*
Robin: You can't get away from Batman that easy!
Batman: Easily.
Robin: Easily.
Batman: Good grammer is essential, Robin.
Ian Collins
> Seebs wrote:
>> On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>> spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
>>> from nearly 3 weeks ago?
>>
>> I have no clue.
>>
>> BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing: I was
>> regaling
>> one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he
>> suddenly
>> said "Wait! Is this guy Edward Nilges?"
>>
>> The coworker? Chris Torek. :)
>>
>> I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
>
> I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted
> character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.
Or update your kill file and ignore his nonsense.
--
Ian Collins
spinoza1111
It is all rather low-level to mistake fandom for knowledge or even
knowledge's ersatz, "expertise". Knowing something as a scientific
matter has nothing to do with whether you like it.
spinoza1111
> Seebs wrote:
> > On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
> >> from nearly 3 weeks ago?
>
> > I have no clue.
>
> > BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing: I was regaling
> > one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he suddenly
> > said "Wait! Is this guy EdwardNilges?"
>
> > The coworker? Chris Torek. :)
>
> > I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
>
> I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted
> character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.
Excuse me, the character assassination started when I was discussing
OO in comp.programming, and Chris Torek started an autistic and
childish rant about Visual Basic efficiency that was off-topic.
spinoza1111
> On 2010-01-21, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted
> > character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.
>
> I'd suggest the best target would be that he wears glasses. If that's
> not good for a week or two of mockery, I don't know what is.
Seebach, you're the bully. You started in on Schildt out of envy and
you call Apress colleagues morons. Some of us defend ourselves. Quit
whining.
>
> (Unless my memory's wrong and he doesn't.)
>
> -s
> --
Richard Heathfield
> *From the 1966 TV series:*
> Robin: You can't get away from Batman that easy!
> Batman: Easily.
> Robin: Easily.
> Batman: Good grammer is essential, Robin.
Robin: How about spelling?
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Mandatory spelling error can be found hear.
spinoza1111
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > Seebs wrote:
> >> On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >>> Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
> >>> from nearly 3 weeks ago?
>
> >> I have no clue.
>
> >> BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing: I was
> >> regaling
> >> one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he
> >> suddenly
> >> said "Wait! Is this guy EdwardNilges?"
>
> >> The coworker? Chris Torek. :)
>
> >> I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
>
> > I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted
> > character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.
>
> Or update your kill file and ignore his nonsense.
>
> --
> Ian Collins
The age old question being how these guys who claim
To have Killed the Troll can be so off their game
As to see the Torment of the Troll, the blood in the water,
And with such boyish enthusiasm and such hards on are drawn back to
the slaughter
Like German soldiers in World War II
Goggling at the shooting of the Jew
Or goggle-eyed rednecks at the lynch.
It's a cinch,
If you come in here and say kill him
You are full of hatred and malice
But because you're a coward you won't admit it.
They're not interested in peace, their metaphor is kill
But they're too cowardly to do so with a will.
Instead they pompously insert
Pencil dicks into the discussion
Treating this newsgroup as their own personal glory hole
By saying, just kill that asshole.
>
Joe Wright
> jamm wrote:
>
>> *From the 1966 TV series:*
>> Robin: You can't get away from Batman that easy!
>> Batman: Easily.
>> Robin: Easily.
>> Batman: Good grammer is essential, Robin.
>
> Robin: How about spelling?
>
--
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."
Colonel Harlan Sanders
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
>court.
Here we are, two months later
Nilges has not only failed to carry out his ludicrous legal threats
against Heathfield, he's gone on to make a similar empty threat
against Seebach:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:51:23 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 2:55�am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
....
>I'm beginning to wonder if you are truly an evil man.
>
>You can have countless bugs and be excused, it seems to me, and your
>pretense of humility is unlinked to any charity (and therefore is not
>humility), since you charged Schildt with "hundreds" of bugs and
>coined a foul word out of his patronym, and you've completely
>misrepresented my work, which is vastly superior to yours even though
>I don't fucking know C that much, in hopes that newbies and managers
>won't do due diligence, and just chance upon your wild and
>unsubtantiated claims, your libelous and criminal claims, concerning
>my competence.
>
>But dig it, puke: attorneys WILL do due diligence. And your employer
>(and Apress) are not going to be amused if they are involved in the
>mess you made.
Looking forward to the next case, Ed.
Is there such a thing as a inverse class action?
You could save a lot of time and just lay charges against everyone who
disrespects you or looks at you funny in the street. String them all
up, it's only what they deserve.
Or you can fantasise how you'd snub Seebach at a party. I'm sure his
ears are burning about that.
Richard Heathfield
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
> <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
>> court.
>
> Here we are, two months later
> Nilges has not only failed to carry out his ludicrous legal threats
> against Heathfield, he's gone on to make a similar empty threat
> against Seebach:
Actually, I *did* eventually get a letter from a lawyer. I have no idea
whether it's Mr Nilges's lawyer, but I suppose it's not impossible. It
goes like this:
"Dear Mr Heathfield
"My client, whom I shall not name in this letter, claims that you are a
Nazi Fascist Ansi-Semite [sic] MI5 Operative, and that you are damaging
his reputation by laughing your socks off whenever he posts source code
to Usenet. He further claims that you are constantly attempting to
deceive people into thinking that he's incompetent by pointing out vast
swathes of technical and logical errors in his articles to which he has
no adequate response, technical or otherwise. And he further claims that
you are a bully, a thug, and a sexist racist homophobic pig who should
be hounded out of comp.lang.c because it's no more than you deserve, you
white-assed fag.
"I could not resist writing to you, if only to say this to you: if you
think *you've* got problems, please bear in mind that this guy has my
*phone number*."
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Walter Banks
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> I suppose it's not impossible. It
> goes like this:
>
> "Dear Mr Heathfield
snipped
Now you have done it, I have blown coffee all over
my keyboard :)
w..
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Seebs
> "I could not resist writing to you, if only to say this to you: if you
> think *you've* got problems, please bear in mind that this guy has my
> *phone number*."
I read this to Beloved Spouse, who responded with dumbfounded amazement
followed by a great deal of laughter. Very nicely done.
-s
--
spinoza1111
This is a lie. Of course, I never sent this, nor wrote it, and you
lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
material for my real lawyer.
spinoza1111
> On 2010-02-27, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "I could not resist writing to you, if only to say this to you: if you
> > think *you've* got problems, please bear in mind that this guy has my
> > *phone number*."
>
> I read this to Beloved Spouse, who responded with dumbfounded amazement
> followed by a great deal of laughter. Very nicely done.
We had fed the heart on fantasies,
The heart's grown brutal from the fare;
More substance in our enmities
Than in our love; O honey-bees,
Come build in the empty house of the stare.
My contempt for you is almost matched by my contempt for people who
see this and don't call Seebach out.
>
> -s
> --
Chris M. Thomasson
news:e99666eb-dd79-4b31...@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 28, 7:23 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST),spinoza1111
> > <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
> >> court.
>
> > Here we are, two months later
> > Nilges has not only failed to carry out his ludicrous legal threats
> > against Heathfield, he's gone on to make a similar empty threat
> > against Seebach:
>
> Actually, I *did* eventually get a letter from a lawyer. I have no idea
> whether it's Mr Nilges's lawyer, but I suppose it's not impossible. It
> goes like this:
>
> "Dear Mr Heathfield
> This is a lie. Of course, I never sent this, nor wrote it, and you
> lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
> material for my real lawyer.
How much will your lawyer charge you to read this?
Richard Heathfield
If Nilges were stupid enough to show his lawyer the article, the lawyer
will do at least three things:
(a) find it extremely hard not to laugh;
(b) point out to his client that, since it doesn't name anyone, it's
hard to see how it could damage anyone's reputation or constitute a
misrepresentation - Nilges's statement "I never sent this, nor wrote it"
is redundant since nobody ever claimed he did;
(c) present a bill. If the lawyer's a regular kinda guy, he might give a
discount on this occasion (see (a)).
Seebs
> "spinoza1111" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e99666eb-dd79-4b31...@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
>> material for my real lawyer.
> How much will your lawyer charge you to read this?
And will the lawyer be aware of the general history of rulings suggesting
that obvious satire is not generally actionable?
-s
--
Colonel Harlan Sanders
but this one is a gem:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:45:12 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>However, it's plain that I'm a piker when it comes to being offensive.
>See Heathfield's post in the thread Edward Nilges' Lie.
Nilges' uncharacteristic modesty betrays him. No one here even comes
close to being so consistently and grossly offensive as Nilges.
>Because he cannot code properly and doesn't know computer science, and
>is an uncultivated boor who works as a temp, he thinks it's cute to
>forge letters said to be from me, a violation of the law.
>
>Julienne and blm, you are enablers, because you don't complain to him
>about his behavior: like many women in this type of situation, you're
>a little dazzled by the thug and his transgressions; perhaps an
>atavistic part of you is not a little excited by blood, metaphorical
>or otherwise. I am using this newsgroup as intended and even Seebach
>has conceded that these threads have been useful and productive. I
>start them, whereas Heathfield and Seebach endeavor to destroy them
>because they're not qualified to participate on a level with people
>like Navia and Willem, let alone me (100% bug rate in strlen, absurd
>linked list, heap a DOS term, is not a programmer per se, etc).
>
>Julienne, blm, and Malcolm, I shall not participate in these newsgroup
>until you find it in yourselves to complain to Heathfield and Seebach
>in the thread Edward Nilges' lie where Heathfield posts a letter he
>says is from my lawyer: this was a criminal act on his part. I will
>not read or post to these newsgroups, and you people can return to
>your regularly scheduled programming.
Nilges promises to leave a newsgroup, or Usenet, almost as often as
he promises to sue someone for libel. Sadly his resolve rarely lasts
for more than a half hour.
>You may email me at spino...@yahoo.com. But what I would most
>appreciate is copies of your post or emails to Seebach and Heathfield,
>asking them to desist. This type of behavior is the norm in groups of
>fair and decent people.
>
>Otherwise, I am wasting my time here.
>
>Malcolm, Julienne, blm: unless I hear from you by Monday March 8,
>under advice of my counsel, genuine letters are going this week to
>Seebach's employer and my publisher (who is also Seebach's publisher)
>concerning his behavior. In addition, a letter is going to SAMS
>concerning Heathfield.
Another deadline! Wonderful.
My bet: He has never and will never follow this up in the real world.
And he has no "counsel".
Though it's slightly OT on the subject of Nilges' lies, it's hard not
to be awestruck by the depth of his hypocrisy in making an issue about
a parody that echoes his own words, that says nothing about him at
all, while browsing his recent output will find it full of vicious,
direct personal insults and what is certainly libellous statements
(not that anyone else would actually think of trying to take them to
court).
Seebs
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:45:12 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
><spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Malcolm, Julienne, blm: unless I hear from you by Monday March 8,
>>under advice of my counsel, genuine letters are going this week to
>>Seebach's employer and my publisher (who is also Seebach's publisher)
>>concerning his behavior. In addition, a letter is going to SAMS
>>concerning Heathfield.
> My bet: He has never and will never follow this up in the real world.
> And he has no "counsel".
I wouldn't be totally surprised if he contacted the publishers, because
doing that is cheap and easy. I really don't feel a great deal of concern
on the issue, though.
William Hughes
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Well, explicit language is not always needed:
Hey, I didn't threaten him or nuthin'
I just said it would be a shame if the
shop burned down.
I think it would be ruled that it was obvious who
the parody was aimed at. On the other hand since
you do not attribute anything to Nilges that he
has not said, it is hard to see this as actionable.
-William Hughes
William Hughes
> On 2010-03-01, Chris M. Thomasson <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >news:e99666eb-dd79-4b31...@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> This is a lie. Of course, I never sent this, nor wrote it, and you
> >> lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
> >> material for my real lawyer.
> > How much will your lawyer charge you to read this?
>
> And will the lawyer be aware of the general history of rulings suggesting
> that obvious satire is not generally actionable?
Rulings where? There is a great deal of uncertainty as
to where, if there was a tort, the tort took place,
(United Kingdom, where the most important servers are,
where the message was read ...) The first thing the lawyer
should do after cleaning his desk, is to determine the
best place to bring a claim.
- William Hughes
io_x
"Seebs" <usenet...@seebs.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:slrnhonadn.4vu...@guild.seebs.net...
> On 2010-03-01, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Har...@kfc.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:45:12 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>><spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Malcolm, Julienne, blm: unless I hear from you by Monday March 8,
>>>under advice of my counsel, genuine letters are going this week to
>>>Seebach's employer and my publisher (who is also Seebach's publisher)
>>>concerning his behavior. In addition, a letter is going to SAMS
>>>concerning Heathfield.
>
>> My bet: He has never and will never follow this up in the real world.
>> And he has no "counsel".
>
> I wouldn't be totally surprised if he contacted the publishers, because
> doing that is cheap and easy. I really don't feel a great deal of concern
> on the issue, though.
in ogni modo per la gente che abita qui,
vi e' un detto, un proverbio
"fai bene e scordalo, fai male e pensaci"
"if you make good, you forget about it;
if you make harm(ill), you think about it"
----------------
Sir {23: 19}
18 L�uomo infedele al proprio letto
dice fra s� �Chi mi vede?
Tenebra intorno a me e le mura mi nascondono;
nessuno mi vede, che devo temere?
Dei miei peccati non si ricorder� l�Altissimo�.
19 Il suo timore riguarda solo gli occhi degli uomini;
non sa che gli occhi del Signore
sono miriadi di volte pi� luminosi del sole;
essi vedono tutte le azioni degli uomini
e penetrano fin nei luoghi pi� segreti.
20 Tutte le cose, prima che fossero create, gli erano note;
allo stesso modo anche dopo la creazione.
21 Quest�uomo sar� punito nelle piazze della citt�,
sar� preso dove meno se l�aspetta.
Seebs
> Rulings where? There is a great deal of uncertainty as
> to where, if there was a tort, the tort took place,
> (United Kingdom, where the most important servers are,
> where the message was read ...) The first thing the lawyer
> should do after cleaning his desk, is to determine the
> best place to bring a claim.
I'm not aware of any likely jurisdiction where judges would take seriously
a defamation claim against an obvious bit of satire. I've never heard of
such a case going anywhere. My guess is that any threats Nilges actually
sends will be resolved much along the lines of Arkell v. Pressdram.
Walter Banks
Seebs wrote:
> I'm not aware of any likely jurisdiction where judges would take seriously
> a defamation claim against an obvious bit of satire. I've never heard of
> such a case going anywhere. My guess is that any threats Nilges actually
> sends will be resolved much along the lines of Arkell v. Pressdram.
Short enough the wording should be familiar.
Nick Keighley
<stuff>
I thought you weren't posting anymore?