Richard Heathfield: liar
spinoza1111
book on C, "C Unleashed" has long abused posters here for making
"errors" when they attempt to be creative, to innovate, to suggest new
ways to do things, and he believes, like many incompetent programmers,
that "errors" diminish "credibility", despite the fact that a high
error count has to be transformed into an error rate by dividing it by
contributions made.
However, a bald-faced lie does in fact destroy credibility. In fact,
the very meaning of the word "credibility" has far less to do with
errors made than with simple, basic honesty.
Richard Heathfield has long participated in the hounding of Herb
Schildt, was based on a dishonest document by Peter Seebach (the
moderator of comp.lang.c.moderated) which listed about twenty trite
errors and then (while saying that these were the "known" errors)
stating also, in a dishonest fashion because contradictory, that there
"were" hundreds more and a "drinking game" in the book. This post has
caused considerable distress to Herb which means that under British
and American libel law, it was malicious and a libel.
Heathfield has also told us stories that are impossible to credit,
such as one about a female CS instructor who, he said, claimed that
the for loop condition is tested after each statement in the for loop.
Heathfield loves to trip up people on errors which they retract
because he's a liar, and this evening he has lied egregiously and in a
way that can be immediately exposed.
In a post today on comp.lang.c.moderated, Richard Heathfield writes:
"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."
This is a lie, and it constitutes defamation under British law as does
Seebach's claims about Schildt.
Search for "Edward G. Nilges" comp.risks: : it is common knowledge
here that spinoza1111==Edward G. Nilges:
See http://www.five-ten-sg.com/risks/22.html
Issue 22.44: The Total Information Awareness program is a RISK!
(Edward G. Nilges)
Issue 22:45: Re: O Big Brother, where art thou? (Edward G. Nilges)
Issue 22:48: Re: O Big Brother, where are thou? (David Martin, Edward
Nilges)
See also http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.35.html
Issue 24:35: The Risks of Retro Computing? (Edward G. Nilges)
See also http://lists.jammed.com/RISKS/2004/11/0000.html:
Issue 23:58: Battlefield Robotics are risk to the world public (Edward
G. Nilges)
Issue 11:88: Re: Formalism in Computer Science Education (Edward G.
Nilges): note that based on this post, I was invited to be interviewed
for a planned film on women and computing)
A search at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/php/risks/search.php?query=Nilges
produces 37 distinct hits. Each is a separate new post or reply, and
each was diligently reviewed by Peter Neumann, and approved.
Furthermore, he agreed to be interviewed by me on Dijkstra in 2003.
Heathfield needs to retract his lie, and leave this group.
Otherwise he's risking a lawsuit for defamation under the rather
strict laws of his country.
Please ignore Richard Heathfield.
--
comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: cl...@plethora.net -- you must
have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
Thomas Richter
Dear moderators,
do we really have to read personal attacks here in this forum? Please
consider filtering posts like the above.
Thank you, and Merry Christmas,
Thomas
Seebs
> do we really have to read personal attacks here in this forum? Please
> consider filtering posts like the above.
I have considered it, but at this time, I would rather not begin trying
to police for content. I do recommend killfiling Spinny.
Hmm.
I should probably modify the approval script to tag the posts somehow, huh.
-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
> /* snip */
>
> Dear moderators,
>
> do we really have to read personal attacks here in this forum? Please
Richard Heathfield initiated a war ten years ago when in
comp.programming I started a well-received discussion on the
historical context of programming professionalism which he wasn't
qualified to participate in or dominate. My "attacks" constitute
verbal self-defense, and this self-defense will continue until he
apologizes or leaves.
You need to do a little "cosmology", and witness how the attacks
start. For example, examine the current treatment of Wang Yip in the
clc thread "Void Main?". He came in not knowing the void main
shibboleth, a shibboleth that matters only on miniature operating
systems written by incompetents, and writing in (good) Chinglish. The
usual thugs (Peter Seebach, Keith Thompson, Flash Gordon, et al.)
started in on him not only because of his lack of shibboleth but also
because he writes in Chinglish.
His response is to tell these bullies that he's working on advanced
project, which he probably is, because my own experience as a
programmer in mainland China is that mainland Chinese developers work
brutally hard without access to computer books, doing far more than
American developers can do (a complete working parser for Visual Basic
in two weeks, for example).
He calls these bullies US Imperialists and invites them to fuck
themselves. Technically speaking, they are, because US software firms
do indeed expect to hire small numbers of script kiddies and have them
send the hard stuff offshore, a form of imperialism.
It's not a personal attack: it's self-defense.
In all cases, a small number of posters here (Richard Heathfield,
Peter Seebach, Keith Thompson, Flash Gordon, and a few others) START
shit by refusing to acknowledge the professionalism and qualifications
of hard-working people who come here to discuss code. They jump on
trivial errors, such as the main shibboleth or the use of an invariant
subexpression in a for loop, and immediately start globally
questioning the qualifications of the entrant in a way that is
searchable and can be used by the newbie's current and potential
employers.
> consider filtering posts like the above.
>
> Thank you, and Merry Christmas,
>
> Thomas
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-25, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> > do we really have to read personal attacks here in this forum? Please
> > consider filtering posts like the above.
>
> I have considered it, but at this time, I would rather not begin trying
> to police for content. I do recommend killfiling Spinny.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I should probably modify the approval script to tag the posts somehow, huh.
You could also modify it to exclude commercial spam. I have every
confidence in your ability to do this. Go for it, Scripto Boy!
>
> -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!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must