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
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
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.
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."
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
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.