Concerns Heathfield's and Seebach's behavior: please read

[spinoza1111]

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.

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.

You may email me at (e-mail address removed). 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.

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

[...]

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.

How much is all of this costing you?

 

[Malcolm McLean]

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.

I'm not really interested in a thread entitled "Edward Nilges' lie". I
only glanced at it briefly. In fact I probably wouldn't have looked at
this one if it was not only two posts.

However I'm mentioned by name so I suppose I'd better reply. The laws
of libel, slander and the Internet are fluid, as the legal system
adapts to a new social reality. Any legal case may therefore be
complicated and lead you into a lot of expense. I certainly want no
involvement if I can possibly avoid it. I'm not rich, but I'm not so
poor that I have nothing to lose.

I think the flame war between you, Seebach and Heathfield is obviously
fulfilling some emotional need on both sides, and I respect that. If
you can take out your frustrations by posting angry or supercilious
messages to Usenet, rather than by beating your wife, that's all to
the good. If I get drawn in I will become obsessed with it, because
that's the personality type that I am. I'd caution against letting the
situation spill beyond the ng, however. That leads us into uncharted
waters.

I do think that you might have some valuable things to say about the
sociological aspects of programming. However posts like that are
dangerous to topicality, because they constantly threaten to veer off
into geenral political discussion, a tendency that you often reinforce
by mentioning non-programming matters, like the Afghan war. They will
also irritate some people who don't share your political views, and
who don't have a liberal arts culture of debate. It's asking for a
very hostile reaction. However with Heathfield I don't think you've
got it. As I said, I think the dispute meets emotional needs on both
sides.

I'd think again whether you really want me to step in as judge. If you
want me to step in as partisan then the answer is jo, for the reasons
I've outlined.

 

[Julienne Walker]

Julienne and blm, you are enablers, because you don't complain to him
about his behavior:

As with Malcolm, I've been addressed directly, so I'll respond to a
thread I would normally leave alone. I won't presume to speak for blm,
but I care too little about the online quibbles of children to bother
with theatrics. I prefer not to take sides in a fight where I have no
vested interest, and attempts to convince me to join with fallacious
logic are unlikely to succeed.

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.

Threatening to quit because others won't play by your rules is
childish and ineffective amongst adults. I don't care enough about you
to be intimidated by such a threat, so you're welcome to either make
good on it or not. However, I refuse to complain to anyone involved
because it's a waste of time. In my estimation, you're all too
stubborn for complaints to be effective.

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.

I see a few problems with this ultimatum:

1) Only incompetent counsel would advise you along such a destructive
path. It's easy to see that any legal action you take will fail and
could potentially backfire to damage *you* personally. As such, I
believe these threats are not under the advice of counsel and you have
no intention of sending any letters that would take such a risk.

2) I have no incentive to stop you from sending any letters, and I
suspect Malcolm and blm are in the same boat. It's much like
threatening to slash the tires of a neighbor I barely know if I don't
submit to your will. It would be a shame, but that's really my
neighbor's problem, not mine.

3) You've already made these threats without the condition of my
complaint, so why should I expect that any action on my part would
possibly stop you?

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

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.

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.

Ummm... I think that Julienne and blm are smart enough to not ever want to
be in the presence of a thug. Why do you think they would be so stupid?

[...]

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Ummm... I think that Julienne and blm are smart enough to not ever want to
be in the presence of a thug. Why do you think they would be so stupid?

Are you, or have you ever been a sexist?

;^/

 

[Malcolm McLean]

Ummm... I think that Julienne and blm are smart enough to not ever want to
be in the presence of a thug. Why do you think they would be so stupid?

It's in woman's interest to make sure her offspring have the best
genes possible, which means mating with a socially dominant male.
Thugs are often dominant. It doesn't really matter whether that means
"dominant within a small sub-society" or "dominant within broader
society". The leader of a street gang will probably father a great
many children.

There are other factors, of course. She's also got to try to
monopolise the male's resources. So the ideal strategy is to get a
thug and convert him - at least as far as domestic thuggishness goes.
This is easier said than done.

Stupidity doesn't enter into it. It's all calculation of genetic
interest.

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

It's in woman's interest to make sure her offspring have the best
genes possible, which means mating with a socially dominant male.

Humm... IMHO, you are overlooking so much. A random socially dominant male
might not give a shi% about his kids. The family is dealt a blow. I refuse
to believe that a plurality of women are not smart enough to detect a scum
bag...

Thugs are often dominant. It doesn't really matter whether that means
"dominant within a small sub-society" or "dominant within broader
society". The leader of a street gang will probably father a great
many children.

What a shame.

[...]

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

It's in woman's interest to make sure her offspring have the best
genes possible, which means mating with a socially dominant male.
Thugs are often dominant. It doesn't really matter whether that means
"dominant within a small sub-society" or "dominant within broader
society". The leader of a street gang will probably father a great
many children.

There are other factors, of course. She's also got to try to
monopolise the male's resources. So the ideal strategy is to get a
thug and convert him - at least as far as domestic thuggishness goes.
This is easier said than done.

Stupidity doesn't enter into it. It's all calculation of genetic
interest.

Women are way more complex than you think they are. You only "think" that
you can successfully decode them.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Women are way more complex than you think they are. You only "think" that
you can successfully decode them.

simplistic sociobiology has about as much value as astrology.
The homeopathic equivalent of thought.

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

simplistic sociobiology has about as much value as astrology.
The homeopathic equivalent of thought.

IMVHO, Women have free will.

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:


Men, on the other hand...

Men can control their brains. Sometimes...

;^/

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Men can control their brains. Sometimes...

;^/

IMHO, women can readily detect the ones that cannot control their brains.

 

[Nick Keighley]

IMVHO, Women have free will.

what led you think I thought otherwise?

 

[Ersek, Laszlo]

Men can control their brains. Sometimes...

;^/

That's not enough. You also need information that actually reflects the
state of the world, so your decisions have any relevance. Getting that
information is sort of data mining with ill-defined heuristics (and very
few retries).

(No, no, not a mysogynist here! Really.)

lacos

 

[blmblm]

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.

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.

Is that how you read that post? I didn't -- I read it as an imagined
letter by someone else (your legal counsel). Oh, and indeed later in
the post to which I'm replying you say you read it the same way ....

Julienne and blm, you are enablers, because you don't complain to him
about his behavior:

I don't complain because I don't find his behavior especially
offensive. I do think some of the discussion here has unfortunate
overtones of "let's gang up on the unpopular guy" -- but, um,
sometimes there's a reason the "unpopular guy" has that status,
and sometimes it's not undeserved. I won't go further in the
direction of picking a side in this fight, at least publicly.

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.

Maybe this marks me as overly sensitive, but really -- I find this
public speculation about what might be going on in the less-conscious
parts of my mind unwelcome and inappropriate. "Just sayin'", maybe.

[ snip ]

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.

You may email me at (e-mail address removed). 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.

I notice that you've posted something to the effect that you're
going ahead with the plan to contact publishers, somewhat ahead
of your stated deadline. So perhaps it hardly matters what I
say here, but for the record:

I don't think anyone here has done anything that warrants being
pursued in other venues, from e-mail to courts of law, and your
attempt to enlist my support by making threats is -- well, perhaps
it's just as well that I can't think of exactly the right word
for it, but I decline to be so enlisted. I'm mildly curious about
how you chose your three potential supporters, but -- <shrug>.

 

[Dann Corbit]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:


Men, on the other hand...

All men are mortal.
All women are mortal.
Therefore, all men are women.[*]
Clearly then, all men have free will also.

[*] Yes, it is a very bad math joke.

 

[John Bode]

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.

You mean the thread that *you* started titled "Richard Heathfield's
Lie" (http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/
fcf1798c91f4fdc4), which was retitled by Colonel Harlan Sanders (who
is not Richard Heathfield) as "Edward Nilges' Lie" (http://
groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/771ba359d9a2afdb). You
started this particular fight. You threw the first punch. Now you're
crying that people are being mean to you.

This is pathethic. You are pathetic.

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.

Actually, he said (http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/
ef86f0b0c8aba46c):

"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."

Yes, Heathfield is openly mocking you. Frankly, you deserve it at
this point. I still think you need professional help, but that's less
out of concern for you than for random strangers you'll run into in
the future.

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.

Oh, yeah, that kind of attitude is going to win you *loads* of support
from the women.

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.

Is that a promise? Can we hold you to that?

You may email me at (e-mail address removed). 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.

I look forward to the results.

 

[Keith Thompson]

"spinoza1111" spews:

Oh, gawd. I come to comp.lang.c to see what's up in the world
of C, and I see this stuff. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
off-topic for this group. If you want to make behavior
complaints and/or legal threats, do it by email, mail, or
telephone; technical Usenet groups are *NOT* the place for it.
The rest of us are offended at being hijacked in this way.

Robbie, we've been telling him this for months. It never works.
(Ignoring him might work, but only if we can all bring ourselves
to do it.)

I've found that a killfile makes this newsgroup a much more
pleasant place.