Richard Heathfield's lie

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by spinoza1111, Dec 24, 2009.

  1. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    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 , 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.
    spinoza1111, Dec 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 25, 1:19 am, superpollo <> 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. 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.
    spinoza1111, Dec 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. spinoza1111

    Argonaut Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    <> 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.
    Argonaut, Dec 24, 2009
    #3
  4. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 25, 2:38 am, Argonaut <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    >
    > <> 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": 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, Dec 25, 2009
    #4
  5. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 25, 3:33 am, Francis Glassborow
    <> wrote:
    > Argonaut wrote:
    > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    > > <> 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.
    >
    > 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, Dec 25, 2009
    #5
  6. spinoza1111

    Argonaut Guest

    On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    <> wrote:

    >On Dec 25, 2:38 am, Argonaut <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    >>
    >> <> 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.
    Argonaut, Dec 25, 2009
    #6
  7. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    On 2009-12-25, Argonaut <> 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.

    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 /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    Seebs, Dec 25, 2009
    #7
  8. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 25, 2:42 pm, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2009-12-25, Argonaut <> 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 / ://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    spinoza1111, Dec 25, 2009
    #8
  9. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 25, 2:17 pm, Argonaut <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Dec 25, 2:38 am, Argonaut <> wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111

    >
    > >> <> 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.


    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.
    spinoza1111, Dec 25, 2009
    #9
  10. spinoza1111

    Argonaut Guest

    On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:13:20 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    <> wrote:

    >On Dec 25, 2:17 pm, Argonaut <> 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.
    Argonaut, Dec 25, 2009
    #10
  11. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 25, 6:14 pm, Argonaut <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:13:20 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Dec 25, 2:17 pm, Argonaut <> 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, Dec 25, 2009
    #11
  12. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 25, 5:43 pm, "io_x" <> wrote:
    > "spinoza1111" <> ha scritto nel messaggionews:...
    >
    > 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


    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.
    spinoza1111, Dec 25, 2009
    #12
  13. spinoza1111

    Argonaut Guest

    On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:47:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    <> wrote:

    >On Dec 25, 6:14 pm, Argonaut <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:13:20 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >On Dec 25, 2:17 pm, Argonaut <> 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.
    Argonaut, Dec 25, 2009
    #13
  14. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 25, 8:53 pm, Argonaut <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:47:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Dec 25, 6:14 pm, Argonaut <> wrote:
    > >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:13:20 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111

    >
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >> >On Dec 25, 2:17 pm, Argonaut <> 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> >> 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.


    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.
    spinoza1111, Dec 26, 2009
    #14
  15. Richard Heathfield <> writes:
    > In
    > <>,
    > 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 ,

    >
    > 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 "". The fact that
    "" is mangled to "" when
    the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.

    One such posting has:
    Message-ID: <>

    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 "" 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) <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"
    Keith Thompson, Dec 27, 2009
    #15
  16. On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:19:45 UTC, superpollo <>
    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!
    Herbert Rosenau, Dec 27, 2009
    #16
  17. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 27, 5:48 pm, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:

    Gee, you're still an asshole.

    > 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 ,

    >
    > 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 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:
    >
    > 1111
    > 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.
    >
    > --
    > 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
    spinoza1111, Dec 27, 2009
    #17
  18. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 27, 6:45 pm, Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    > Richard Heathfield <> 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 ,

    >
    > > 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
    > > asspinoza1111? 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=com...
    >
    > This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
    > that include postings by "".  The fact that
    > "" is mangled to "" 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: <>
    >
    > 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 "" 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
    .
    >
    > --
    > Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith)  <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"
    spinoza1111, Dec 27, 2009
    #18
  19. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 27, 8:29 pm, "Herbert Rosenau" <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:19:45 UTC, superpollo <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >spinoza1111ha 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.


    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
    > eComStation 1.2R Deutsch ist da!
    spinoza1111, Dec 27, 2009
    #19
  20. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Dec 27, 7:13 pm, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > Keith Thompson wrote:
    > > Richard Heathfield <> 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 ,
    > >> 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
    > >> asspinoza1111? 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=com...

    >
    > > This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
    > > that include postings by "".

    >
    > You were more fortunate than me, then, since I performed three separate
    > searches, none of which returned any hits.
    >
    >    The fact that
    >
    > > "" is mangled to "" when
    > > the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.

    >
    > > One such posting has:
    > > Message-ID: <>

    >
    > > 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."

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > Of course, nobody should mistake this for a defense of Spinny's
    > > obsessive claim of deliberate deceipt.

    >
    > Right.
    >
    > --
    > 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
    spinoza1111, Dec 27, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    629
  2. Malcolm McLean

    Richard Heathfield's personal threads.

    Malcolm McLean, Nov 9, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    52
    Views:
    1,166
    Christopher Benson-Manica
    Nov 21, 2007
  3. Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

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

    Tomás Ó hÉilidhe, Dec 13, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    113
    Views:
    1,957
    Richard Bos
    Dec 22, 2008
  4. Anonymous

    Animosity on the part of Mr Richard Heathfield

    Anonymous, Dec 14, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    385
    CBFalconer
    Dec 21, 2008
  5. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Animosity on the part of Mr Richard Heathfield

    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Dec 14, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    218
    Borked Pseudo Mailed
    Dec 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page