[OFF-TOPIC] Animosity on the part of Mr Richard Heathfield

[Kenny McCormack]

That is simply not true. He may not haved used that specific word in the
original post, but his intent was clear enough. At any rate, Richard
directly referred to him as a racist in this very thread. I'm not taking
sides, but you appear to be the one distorting things.

Jack Klein being a lying sack of crap isn't exactly news.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

The word "racism" did not appear in Richard's post.  So he did not
accuse you, in any way, shape, or form of racism.

You're correct, he did not use the word "racism" is his most recent
attack, but he has in at least three previous attacks.

 So your statement
to the contrary is either an error or a deliberate lie, an attempt to
distort his position.

Do a Google search for posts containing "racism OR racist" by "Richard
Heathfield". Prove me wrong.

Richard quoted an earlier post of yours, word-for-word.  You have
verified not only that this constituted an accurate quotation, but
also that you still feel exactly the same, and stand behind the words.
You were not misquoted or taken out of context.

Every person has their good days and bad days, and the hope is that
the good days greatly outnumber the bad days.

Mr Heathfield has chosen to taken a post from one of my bad days and
replicate it (unprovoked) here in order to tarnish my character. He
also goes on to falsely call me racist. That's character-assassination
regardless of what your precious wiki tells you.

It would be very easy to go through Mr Heathfield's old posts and
create a "super post" of quotes from him that would tarnish others'
view of him, particularly in his exchanges with Mr Navia where he has
shown his true colours as being an impolite hostile man. Compiling
such a "super post" would be character-assassination regardless of
whether I "misquoted him or took him out of context.

It is hard to see how Richard's post can be classified as an attempt
at character assassination

He posted an off-topic unprovoked post dissuading others from
discussing with me.

It specifically tries to draw an "untrue picture" of RH by falsely
claiming that he accused you of racism.

Again, do that Google Groups search to prove me wrong.

Then we have your patently false statement "his malicious
behaviour of attempting to character-assassinate people", for which
you point to a post that did no such thing.

His post clearly changes the subject of the discussion for the sole
purpose of tarnish others' view of me.

In your attempt to defend your against a charge of racism that was not
made in the post you complaining about, you attempt to redefine the
word as meaningless.

You too seem to have a cop-out definition of racism. I'm curious, if
the group I criticised had been white, would it have been OK to
criticise them (on a more suitable forum of course)?

I am afraid your rhetorical skills are rather lacking.

I wasn't aware I had any, I'd have to consult a encyclopedia to tell
you what "rhetoric" is.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

No, he said he had a racist attitude. You may want to carefully consider
the difference between the two.

Consider:
George W Bush shows an attitude of stupidity.
George W Bush is stupid.

No, Mr Heathfield clearly called me racist several times in several
different posts. Later he brought the topic up again unprovoked in an
unrelated thread.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

Is it then your opinion that racist attitudes should be considered
acceptable after a token protest?

Mr Heathfield is one of many people here that have a "politically
correct" definition of "racism". Such persons are unable to construct
their own view of what "racism" is, out of fear of being branded
racist themselves. This is not uncommon in people of his generation,
but fortunately younger generations such as myself have a less guarded
definition of racism.

I criticised a particular group of people, and Mr Heathfield
immediately thought "Those people are of a different race, so surely
that must be racism".

This "politically correct" view of "racism" does harm. Recently on
British TV, there was a reality show called "Big Brother" in which
about a dozen contestants of different backgrounds were put into a
house, and their experiences together were filmed. The black people
got on just fine with the white people, and vice versa. On one of
days, a black girl was joking with a white girl, and the white girl
used said the word "******" when joking with the black girl, the two
of them laughed. No offense was intended, and none was taken. However,
the producers of "Big Brother", being politically correct, called the
white girl in for a publicly aired interview and questioned her use of
the word "******". The white girl replied honestly saying that she was
joking, and indeed she was joking, and the joke was taken well by the
black person, but the producers kicked her off the show.

In an attempt to be politically correct, the producers actually
incited racial hatred themselves.

Mr Heathfield has a warped old-fashioned definition of racism, and he
wrongly labeling me as racist because I criticised a group of people
who were of a different race than me. He clings to an old-aged climate
in which different races cannot criticise each other for fear of being
branded racist, and this in itself incites racial hatred.

Different races cannot live in harmony with each other if they are
afraid to criticise each other for fear of people suggesting that the
criticism is based on race. In fact, different races should be able to
joke with each other, tease each other. I've had black friends, but
I've never been close enough to any of them to jokingly call them a
"******". Being able to do so would have been indicative of a very
strong friendship.

Note also, Mr Heathfield has yet to explain why he interrupted a
technical discussion to inform everyone that I am "racist".

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

Mr Heathfield has chosen to taken a post from one of my bad days

It was more than one day. The thread continued and you continued to
post comments that, frankly, made my jaw drop.

and
replicate it (unprovoked) here in order to tarnish my character. He
also goes on to falsely call me racist. That's character-assassination
regardless of what your precious wiki tells you.

That is surely the point. If the quoted remarks are an accurate
reflection of your character then you have no complaint. If they are
not, why have you not backed off from them? In all the comments you
have posted on this topic I have not seen you say that anything you
said was wrong or inappropriate. You apologised for using the group
to vent, but not for anything you said.

You can sort this out with a few words. Do you stand by the words
that were quoted (and similar remarks that I won't quote that you made
in the subsequent discussion) or do you wish you had not made them? I
stand by your right to say things I find offencive, but I want to know
if I am judging your views correctly. Review the thread of Jun 15th
and 16th and decide if you still agree with what your wrote or if you
now cringe when you read it. You talk about it being a bad day, but
you don't seem to have changed your mind about any of it.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

Are you saying that the quoted paragraph is no longer an accurate
reflection of your views? If so, fine - we'll call that an apology and
move on.

I have apologised already for my rant.

But if it is still an accurate reflection of your views, then my
point remains. And it is you, not me, who have tarnished your character.

No character has been tarnished, there has only been attempted
character-assassinations. Actually no I take that back, you have
tarnished your own character by interrupting a technical discussion to
inform people that you think I'm racist. Your hypocrisy removes all
credibility from your accusations. You have no explanation for why you
interrupted a technical discussion to call a person racist.

Hardly false. You have ascribed negative characteristics to a group of
people identified only by their ethnicity ("Roma gypsies"). Note that
Romany gypsies (and Irish travellers) are defined by UK law (Race
Relations Act 1976) as racial groups.

Law is king, is it? Up until 1990 is was illegal to be homosexual in
Ireland, so I suppose if you were homophobic before 1990 then you were
doing your country a service. I don't need official definitions of
race, because there is no suitable definition. Are English and Irish
people of the same race? Yes and no, and no, and yes, and yes, and no,
and yes.

No, it isn't.

You are laughable. Again you fail to explain why you interrupted a
technical discussion to call me racist. You are a joke of a man and
you are tripping up over your own morals.

Even if I were into character assassination (which I'm not),
I'd be way too late, because you committed character suicide some time
ago.

If you believe that to be true, then that's fine, your entitled to
your own opinion. It's a different kettle of fish altogether however
to interrupt a technical discussion to call a person racist.

Of course, it's not too late to get a clue and begin to understand
that people are, first and foremost, individuals - and our assessment of
them should be based not on things about themselves over which they have
no control (e.g. ethnicity, gender), but on the way that they behave.

Of course, you're right. But the people I criticise have the choice of
changing their clothes, of removing their gold teeth, and of tending
to their hygiene and appearance.

To
claim that all members of an ethnic group behave in the same way and have
the same character failings is not only racist, but clearly ludicrous.

You are right that there may be a very small proportion of people in
the original group I criticised that might not behave as the group
does. If this small proportion wanted to better themselves, they'd
have to separate from the group.

You can try it if you wish, but please remember to exclude any articles
which I have subsequently retracted.

I do not like to tease people about their religion, but I feel I must
bring a point up. Many people fall victim to a religion, I for one
fell victim to Catholicism having being raised in Ireland, but
thankfully it wasn't force on me hard enough to have a lasting
detrimental effect. I do not know Mr Heathfield's upbringing, I do not
blame him for being Christian, nor do I hold him accountable for his
religious beliefs. Mr Heathfield claims to be a devout Christian, and
the religion of Christianity has a thing called "Confession". What
"Confession" means is that you can commit a "sin" and then later
assuage yourself of any guilt by "confessing the sin".

What this does is foster an attitude of never taking responsibility
for what you do, because no matter what you do, you can go to
confession. You can "retract" anything, as Mr Heathfield puts it.

I myself live my life based on the premises of being kind, caring and
compassionate to other people. I live my life every day in an attempt
to better myself. If I screw up, I don't head to a temple to assuage
myself; instead, I try to make up for what I did. If the original
group I criticised were to suddenly better themselves, I would issue
an apology for what I said, and I'd send them a present in good will.

Regarding "retracting" what I said, well I picked the wrong forum for
saying what I said, and I have apologised for that.

The tone of my exchanges with Mr Navia is more or less proportional to the
extent to which he adheres to group conventions.

So you have issued yourself with a license to be impolite to those who
don't "adhere to group conventions". Wake up, there's no group
convention here, there's many many people on this newsgroup and
there's a high proportion of trolls (yourself included). Just
yesterday, myself and Ian Collins disagreed on whether it was OK to
take advantage of "Discussion Threading", and I maintain that
Discussion Threading has revolutionised internet discussion.

In other
words, my attitude towards him is based not on his ethnicity but on his
actions.

Again, I will reiterate that I identify the "aforementioned group" by
the clothes they wear, by their gold teeth, and by their lack of
personal hygiene. All of these things are voluntary.

No, not really. If it were a balanced summary of my posting style, why
would it be character assassination? And if it weren't, it would have no
value anyway.

Who said anything about "balanced"? Is it "balanced" to interrupt a
technical discussion to call a person racist?

What is it about your character that you think I've assassinated? If you no
longer hold the cited views, say so. If you still hold those views, what
character is there to assassinate?

You are entitled to your own opinion of me. If you believe, in all
your Christian wisdom, that I have "no character to assassinate", then
that's fine. It's a different kettle of fish however to interrupt a
technical discussion to call me racist.

No, the purpose of the post was to /remind/ people that you have made
racist statements in this group which you have not retracted. The tarnish
is all yours.

So you interrupted a technical discussion to remind people that you
think I'm racist. Why did you do that? Why should people have to know
that you think I'm racist? Why should a technical discussion be
interrupted to let everyone know that Mr Richard Heathfield thinks
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe is racist? Why should an off-topic rant I posted many
months ago be reproduced today by you?

Any attack on a group identified solely by their ethnicity is a racist
attack, whether the race in question is gypsies, blacks, whites, pinks,
blues, greens, Chinese, Russians, Poles, Australians, Germans, Colombians,
Tanzanians, or Icelanders.

You're correct, that *would* be racism (or ethnicism). Take a member
of the original group I criticised, give them clean clothes, let them
use your shower, give them a job, then I won't be prejudiced against
them. You haven't changed their ethnicity, yet somehow my prejudice
would disappear... hmm that kind of sort of suggests that their
ethnicity plays no part in my prejudice. It sort of kind of suggests
that my prejudice is based on the clothes they wear, their hygiene,
how they treat their kids.

> People are, first and foremost, people, not mere group members. We should
take each on his or her own merits, not tar them all with one enormous
brush.

OK so then you think there's such a thing as a good Nazi.

I myself don't believe that there are good Nazis. In order for such a
"good Nazi" to be truly good, they would have to separate from Nazism.

"Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are", as it was once
so aptly put.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

I don't agree. My working definition of racism is simply this: an attitude
(or statement or claim) that ascribes negative characteristics to members
of an ethnic group by virtue of that group membership.

I find that definition ambiguous. It depends what you mean by "group
membership". For instance, if I stop speaking English and stop
speaking Irish, if I wear Lao clothes and marry a Lao woman, then am I
still a member of the "Irish ethnic group"? If so, the this "group
membership" is INvoluntary.

However, if by stopping speaking English and Irish, by wearing Lao
clothing and marrying a Lao woman, I am no longer a member of the
"Irish ethnic group", then this "group membership" is Voluntary.

I believe group membership to be Voluntary.

With regard to the original group I criticised, I do not blame a child
for being born into that environment. If the child were to grow up and
move on and distance themselves from the original group, then I would
consider them to have abandoned their "group membership".

I do have prejudice against people who belong to particular groups.
The group is something separate from their race however. You could
have a splinter group of good people form the original group I
criticised, and even though the splinter group would be of the same
race, I would not hold prejudice against them.

There's a certain group of people here in Laos that "do stuff like
sell diamonds". These people, coincidentally, all happen to have a
particular skin colour. If a 5-year-old Lao child avoids people of
this particular skin colour, are they racist? Furthermore, if a Lao
parent neglects to tell their child to be weary of people of a
particular skin colour, then are they upholding the virtues of
humanity, or are they being negligent in their child care? I for one
don't want my child brought home to me in a box.

For example, the
belief that Italians are cowardly in warfare is a racist belief. No doubt
some Italians /are/ cowardly in warfare, but this is irrelevant - the
cowardice and nationality are orthogonal; in any ethnic group you'll get
some cowardly people and some brave people.

Company X manufacturers mobile phones. 99% of their phones don't last
longer than a month. Company X makes shit phones. Does that sound
fair?

If an overwhelming proportion of members of a particular group bear a
particular attribute, then it's OK to attribute that attribute to the
group. Kenyans are good runners. Nigerians villagers are musclely.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "The Irish are a pack
of alchoes". I lived in Ireland, I grew up there, I know that most
people there will have a pint or two every day. Here in Laos, I
occassionally get introduced to people as "Here's Tomás, the Irish guy
I was telling you about". My response: "Yes, I'm Irish.... (with a
smile) but I don't drink".

Is this a retraction of your earlier racist statement? That is, are you now
prepared to accept that the characteristics you ascribed to Roma gypsies
actually apply only to some of them, and also to many people of other
ethnic groups?

Correct. However, in this case, "some" is an overwhelming majority.

Wrong. I have already explained that. Note that I did not interrupt the
discussion - the whole point of threaded discussions is that *nobody* can
interrupt *any* discussion.

Bullshit. Ian Collins asked me "Who said what?", and you took the
opportunity to express your opinion that I am racist. You have no
explanation for this. The only explanation is that what you did was
wrong, and that you did it out of sadistic impulse.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

(a) earlier this year seems pretty recent to me;

Daddy: Son, have you see my car keys?
Son: Yes Daddy, I saw them in on the sofa.
(Daddy goes in to check the sofa, and comes back)
Daddy: They're not there, when did you see them?
Son: Eleven days ago.

It's now December. December minus June is about 6 months. 6 months is
pretty god damn long time. 6 months ago I lived in a different
country. 6 months ago I spoke a different language.

But wait wait... we're missing the point. "Recent-ism" has nothing to
do with this. Even if it had been 3 days ago, or 2 hours ago that I
said what I said, that still wouldn't warrant interrupting a technical
discussion to call a person racist.

(b) the time is irrelevant, surely? It is clear that he stands by his views
*right now*, and yet here we are, offering him freebie tech tips. I don't
want any part of that.

This is your rationale? This is the why you interrupt a technical
discussion to call a person racist?! You are a joke of a Christian and
a joke of a man.

 

[Old Wolf]

Using the term "racist" implies that their race is in factor in my
prejudice against them. If a white person were to do the things that
these people do,

Lol, you are so racist you don't even see that
you are. Your use of "them" and "these people"
shows it. You have pre-judged people you
have never met and don't know anything about.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Lol, you are so racist you don't even see that
you are. Your use of "them" and "these people"
shows it. You have pre-judged people you
have never met and don't know anything about.

And they say "policial correctness" is dead...

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

Mr Heathfield, you claim that a Usenet discussion cannot be
interrupted. Here's a hypothetical:
My name's Bobby and I come along to read comp.lang.c. I see the
thread entitled "executable file..." and I read through the thread. I
see the comment by Tomás that says "So it works on some systems but
not all", and then I see Ian's comment that says "Who said what?", and
then next I see your comment that irrelevantly quotes a post from 6
months ago and expresses the view that people should not discuss with
Tomás. That's what I call an interruption. But forget it, I'm not
going to debate this one with you because you'll spin a web of shite
to try get yourself out of having interrupted a technical discussion
in order to call someone racist.

As regards what is a "long time", well that is entirely subjective and
dependent on context, and YOU KNOW THAT. In the context of replying to
a thread on Usenet with an irrelevant quotation from 6 months ago,
that is a very long time. But go on, give more examples, tell me how a
9-year house mortgage is a short time. Again, you'll spin a web of
shite to try prove that you didn't interrupt a technical discussion to
call someone racist.

Your whole view on racism stinks of political correctness and is full
of holes. Here's a question for you, is the following phrase racist?

"The Irish are lovely!"

I was in New York a few years ago and a dozen people must have said
stuff like this to me. Should I have turned around to them and said
"How dare you make a generalisation about my ethnicity?"?

Your definition of "racism" is as follows:

"an attitude (or statement or claim) that ascribes negative
characteristics to members of an ethnic group by virtue of that group
membership"

I notice that it says "negative characteristics", presumably excluding
positive characteristics. So it's OK to generalise by positive
characteristics but not by negative characteristics? Wow, that seems
heavily biased. Sounds like hypocrisy to me. Your politically correct
definition of racism suits you well because people don't get phone
calls from their boss on a Saturday for saying "The Irish are
lovely!", but they do get phone calls from their boss on a Saturday
for saying "The Irish are a pack of scum".

You will never express yourself honestly on a public forum because you
are afraid to express any morsel of humanness. Every word you utter is
shrouded in political correctness. To suggest that you are without
prejudice and that you don't stereotype is to suggest that you are not
human. It's also to suggest that you are a downright fool.

You should come visit Thailand some time. Leave Bangkok airport and
walk out onto the street. Walk by the well-dressed, ID-wearing taxi
drivers to the poor taxi drivers. Being the non-racist, non-
prejudiced, non-stereotyping man that you are, don't make any
generalisations about the taxi drivers. They don't have official
documents to say they're taxi drivers, but that's OK you're a
Christian and you realise they're poor and it's not their fault they
can't afford official documents. Go ahead, get into their taxi, let
them take you somewhere. Let them take you down to a secluded part of
down, let them pull a knife on you, rob you, and stab you in the
heart. You can lie there bleeding to death happy that you have upheld
your non-racist principles.

 

[Bartc]

Anthony Fremont said:


I agree.


Is it then your opinion that racist attitudes should be considered
acceptable after a token protest?

Perhaps if it was possible, you'd also hound the OP out of his job, or stop
him shopping for food or applying for accommodation? For ever?

Have you thought he might have a family to support or that his technical
work might have benefits for others that you seem intent on depriving them
of?

I'm sorry but your attitute is far more disturbing to me that his original
rant. On the other hand I'm unlikely to keep bringing this up in future
unrelated discussions. Perhaps you should read some of that book of yours
that you quote on your website. Look up 'tolerance' and 'forgiveness'.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I'm sorry but your attitute is far more disturbing to me that his original
rant. On the other hand I'm unlikely to keep bringing this up in future
unrelated discussions. Perhaps you should read some of that book of yours
that you quote on your website. Look up 'tolerance' and 'forgiveness'.

I've got news for you (just in case you're not already intimately
familiar with this fact): The whole "Christianity" thing is one big scam.

Although I haven't been to any of the regulars's websites (and certainly
wouldn't waste the time or risk the viruses), it certainly came as no
surprise to learn, as I did a year or so ago, that most of them *were
Christian loonies. It fits in so well with their generali nastiness and
their "politically correct" version of C. Note that the whole point of
Christianity is exactly that of C - to appear helpful and kind, while
not ever actually helping anyone.

Because if you help them, they might actually not need you anymore.
And where's the fun in that?

 

[Phil Carmody]

Anthony Fremont said:


I agree.

I think everyone apart from Tomas is in agreement about that.

Is it then your opinion that racist attitudes should be considered
acceptable after a token protest?

That's a straw man, I've not seen anyone say that they should
be considered acceptible. I've seen people suggest that, whilst
they remain unspoken, they should remain unconsidered.

Would you like me to include "you poster of a straw man argument"
in every subsequent response to you because of your sentence above?

Phil

 

[Phil Carmody]

Anthony Fremont said:


(a) earlier this year seems pretty recent to me;
(b) the time is irrelevant, surely? It is clear that he stands by his views
*right now*, and yet here we are, offering him freebie tech tips. I don't
want any part of that.

Good for you and your moral high ground, Mr. poster of straw men.

The only foolproof method for not having any part of offering a racist
freebie tech tips is to, now sit down - this may come as a shock to you,
not offer any freebie tech tips. This can most efficiently be achieved
by, and again make sure you're prepared for a shock, not posting anything
in response to him.

Phil

 

[Kenny McCormack]

(a bit of a rarity for him, so consider me grateful for this) in
response to a well known CLC troll:
....

Good for you and your moral high ground, Mr. poster of straw men.

The only foolproof method for not having any part of offering a racist
freebie tech tips is to, now sit down - this may come as a shock to you,
not offer any freebie tech tips. This can most efficiently be achieved
by, and again make sure you're prepared for a shock, not posting anything
in response to him.

But you see, that's not his intent. The goal is not simply to withold
technical favors from the guy he dislikes, but rather to try to get
everyone else to do likewise.

It is the later motive that most of us (that is, the sensible ones here)
find so repulsive. It (generally known as "shunning") is the sort of
thing you would like to see confined to whacky cults like the Amish and
the Mor(m)ons.

But then again, CLC certainly qualifies as a whacky cult.

 

[Phil Carmody]

Phil Carmody said:

Silence implies consent, i.e. acceptance.

I notice that so far in your reply you have not criticised
Tomas for his racist views. Your silence has been noted, and,
as you believe that silence implies consent, one can only
conclude that at least you think you consent to his racism.
Which would make you pretty weird.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps silence does not imply consent.

If we all did that, it could get rather tedious, wouldn't you say?

Oooh, you might just be on the cusp of learning something,
you user of straw man arguments.

And I notice that one sentence later you're still remaining
silent on Tomas' racist views. So you must still think his
views are acceptable. Or, again, perhaps silence still does
not imply consent.

Phil

 

[steere_mark]

Got that right.

Oooh, you might just be on the cusp of learning something,
you [snip condescending twaddle]

This piece of shit is all over the Internet, doing what pieces of shit
do: being ugly, stinking, contributing nothing, and posing the very
real danger of someone accidentally stepping on him.

The world isn't such a bad place, Phil. You'd see that if you could
only dislodge your fat head from your colon.

Can you do me a personal favor? Stay the **** out of
rec.games.abstract. You couldn't possibly be less welcome by anyone
with any business being there.

-Mark
http://www.marksteeregames.com/index.html

 

[Harald van Dijk]

Richard didn't.

He did.

Someone else started this thread.

Tomás started this thread in response to

http://groups.google.ie/group/comp.lang.c/msg/639389cb4eed0c46

as he explained in his original message.

 

[Guest]

I think it was a mistake for Richard Heathfield to re-raise this
issue.
As long as Tomas O hEilidhe keeps his racist opinions to himself,
then he should be left to make posts of a technical nature.

Mr Heathfield is lying about his motives here.

I don't think he was

Allow me to explain.
The discussion went as follows:

Myself:

    "So you're saying it works on some
     Windows XP machines but not on all."

Ian Collins:

    "Who said what?"

Mr Heathfield:

    "Tomas O hEilidhe said (only about six months ago,
     in this very newsgroup) But then there's one
     immigrant people..."

As you can see, I did not "exhibit discriminatory attitudes towards
particular ethnic groups" as Mr Heathfield alleges.

yes you did

Mr Heathfield
pounced on the opportunity to character-assassinate me for his own
sadistic ends. There was no other goal in mind, he is full of venom.

I think Mr Heathfield simply dislikes racists. His reasoning seemed
to be if your judgement was so poor in matters of social interaction
then your technical opinions would be equally suspect. As it happens
I disagree here. I've known people to hold some very odd opinions
(eg. young earth creationism) whilst being technically competant.

A foolish man living a pipe dream. In real life, stereotypes and
prejudice are the things that keep you alive.

<snip attempt to justify racist views>