Richard Heathfield's lie

[spinoza1111]

On 14/03/2010 13:58,spinoza1111wrote:

I am guessing that you are using the term in a specifically Usanian way.
I am outside the jurisdiction of the USA, so I don't think the term is
relevant.
Which makes your situation worse, because absent a bill of rights, and
in a tradition (cf. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the [British]
Constitution) of no prior restraint but of punishment after
publication, libel laws make fewer exceptions in the USA.

We have a Bill of Rights, you ignorant troll. See my .sig.

That refers ONLY to the freedom of Parliamentary speech. Are you even
aware that until the 19th century and Hansard, printers could be
jailed for printing Parliamentary proceedings? Are you even aware that
John Peter Zengler was allowed in the American colonies in 1733 to
print attacks on a colonial governor, but then arrested, and charged
under a law of "seditious libel" only repealed by Parliament in 2008?
Are you aware that Parliament has no constitutional check on laws
limiting freedom of speech because (cf Loveland or Dicey) Parliament
as of 1689 was and is a constituent as well as a legislative assembly,
able to pass any law it likes? British judges may NOT call an Act of
Parliament unconstitutional: American judges got Daniel Ellsberg off
for publishing the Pentagon Papers, containing the truth about
America's criminal conduct in Vietnam.

This is why Americans, having been oppressed by the Elector of
Hanover's limits on their substantive freedom of speech (which in
commmon sense and justice includes indemnity from harm after
publication as well as freedom to print, which is merely a market
freedom), fought and won a Revolution and wrote a Constitution which
has become a cynosure and model, quite unlike the British
constitution, at best a ghost in an old play.

And YOU might think it cute when someone, at the risk of his freedom
in China, posts questions and comments here only to be bullied by
thugs in the same way London roughs kicked the shit out of Tom Paine.
I don't.

AV Dicey, the Victorian British-constitutional theorist, thought it
substantively different that satirical rogues could make fun of the
Electors of Hanover (and then get the shit kicked out of them) whilst
Voltaire was visited by Parisian roughs while he was writing and
before publication.

But to have to come in here and see good people like Navia get their
names dragged in the mud reduces "freedom of speech" to the conduct of
football yobs. I defended a first class carriage against these cunts
in Britain in 1971, and I think people like Heathfield are first class
cunts.

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament"

Bill of Rights 1689

The "Glorious Revolution", mate, withdrew most privileges to
university education and position from Catholics. Those rights were
not returned until 1830. Under Parliamentary sovereignity, they can be
taken away again, as well as the freedom to worship of Britain's
hardest-working and most law-abiding ethnic group: Muslims.

All the rich bastards in Parliament in 1689 cared about was preserving
their land and wealth from the questions asked of them by Wat Tyler,
Jack Cade, John Bunyan and Gerald Wynstanley: when Adam delv'd and Eva
span, who was then the gentleman?

Sounds to me you don't know your own history, let alone the history of
my country or the world, yob. And if you don't like what I say, I hope
you're going to the Rugby Sevens this month. We can discuss it in
person.

Sure, to someone who struggles with reading, the above has the general
form of someone ranting about The Injustice of It All on some
investment forum.

But then you notice, whoa, this guy has references to real books and
it seems he's read them.

But THEN, you think, my wack coworker is always toting some book
around.

But THEN, you think, whoa, my wack coworker is on his tenth reading of
Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead but still can't find his dick with a
flashlight and is the office loser despite his committment to
"rational selfishness".

Then you might notice that Your Wack Coworker makes grammar errors and
couldn't write a poem or even sit still to read one.

So, as Butch Cassidy said, "who are these guys". More precisely "who
is this guy" Nilges?

That makes your head hurt, so you circle for the kill. But he eludes
your grasp. Don't he.

you fooles, I and my fellowes
Are ministers of Fate, the Elements
Of whom your swords are temper'd, may as well
Wound the loud windes, or with bemockt-at-Stabs
Kill the still closing waters, as diminish
One dowle that's in my plumbe:

Shakespeare, the Tempest

 

[Squeamizh]

On 15/03/2010 12:08, spinoza1111 wrote:

Are you you idiots seriously going to respond to the latest wave of
nonsensical ramblings from this lunatic? There is really no excuse
for continuing to add this kind of noise.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

spinoza1111 wrote:

Cut


Why are yo so desperately trying to proof you are a troll??

 

[Keith Thompson]

spinoza1111 wrote:

Cut


Why are yo so desperately trying to proof you are a troll??

Right, if the first 2615 complaints haven't had any effect, surely
the 2616th complaint will make him see reason and reform his
trollish ways. (For those who don't recognize it, that was sarcasm.)

I realized some time ago that complaining to spinoza1111 is a
waste of time and bandwidth. I'm now coming to the conclusion that
complaining to the people who continue to provoke him is equally
a waste. (Yeah, I know, what took me so long?)

 

[Richard Bos]

Are you you idiots seriously going to respond to the latest wave of
nonsensical ramblings from this lunatic?

Yes, they are.

There is really no excuse for continuing to add this kind of noise.

Of course not, but there _is_ an explanation. And it isn't pretty.

Richard

 

[Seebs]

Of course not, but there _is_ an explanation. And it isn't pretty.

Every so often I toy with the idea of correcting one or two of the many
errors in a Nilges post. However:

1. I've corrected him on a few of his claims about me in the past, and
he keeps making the obviously false claims.
2. Even though I suspect some of it is technically defamatory per se,
it's not as though anyone's going to believe anything so obviously kooky.

If this were a more chatty forum, I'd probably interact with him for
the lulz, but Usenet tends to favor staying more focused on actual
technical discussion. He gives every impression of being just shy of
completely ineducable, and I don't really see much reason to pursue
things further. People can read my code and make their own decisions
about its quality.

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

On 14/03/2010 13:58,spinoza1111wrote:
I am guessing that you are using the term in a specifically Usanian way.
I am outside the jurisdiction of the USA, so I don't think the term is
relevant.
Which makes your situation worse, because absent a bill of rights, and
in a tradition (cf. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the [British]
Constitution) of no prior restraint but of punishment after
publication, libel laws make fewer exceptions in the USA.
We have a Bill of Rights, you ignorant troll. See my .sig.

That refers ONLY to the freedom of Parliamentary speech.

There's a lot more than just that, Fool, although quite a chunk deals
with the succession.

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of
laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

....Parliamentary supremacy, not a civil right

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of
laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of
late, is illegal;

....Parliamentary supremacy, not a civil right

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for
Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like
nature, are illegal and pernicious;

....Parliamentary supremacy, not a civil right

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of
prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other
manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

....Parliamentary supremacy, not a civil right

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all
commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

....a primitive right which subjects (note they are not called
citizens) had in the Middle Ages, and which is here only reasserted

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time
of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

....Parliamentary supremacy, not a civil right

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their
defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

....Not a right, a privilege, which discriminated against Catholics
until Reform

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

....allowing MPs to be elected by procedures they specified from
gerrymandered "rotten boroughs" until Reform

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament;

....as I have said, a privilege of Parliamentary members who suppressed
publication until Hansard

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

....unless Parliament decides. The lawyer (cf Geoffrey Robertson The
Tyrannicide Brief) who brought charges was disemboweled shortly before
the "glorious" revolution for doing his job with Parliamentary
approval. For more than a hundred years after 1689, poor men were
hanged and transported for small offenses. This was an empty right.

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which
pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

....zzzz

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular
persons before conviction are illegal and void;

....primitive due process

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending,
strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held
frequently.

....Queen Elizabeth may still dissolve it, and the powers of a Mad King
Charles are not in fact limited

Of course not; and neither should they. Judicial review of laws is one
of the more egregious things happening here in recent times.

As it happens, those laws need review since you are a member of the EU
and agree thereby, in return for your goddamn vacations in Spain, to
abide by its written constitution, which was modeled on the American
Constitution and the French Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen.

and a Bill of Rights modelled on the 1689 version.

....considerably rewritten in view of the numerous excesses of the
Elector of Hanover and his thugs in the colonies.

We don't want the American Constitution, thanks, where you're so
hamstrung you can't get anything done. Like to take a bet on Obama's
chances of getting healthcare through?

....as it happens, Americans on Medicare and private plans don't want
those plans changed. I don't agree with them but they rely on those
plans, and any change has to be made with care.

Hardly surprising given the situation at the time, and that not long
before that the then Pope had issued a fatwa on Elisabeth saying it
would be OK to assassinate her.

Popes don't issue fatwas. Elizabeth feared assassination not because
of anything the Pope said. It was because the new availability of hand
pistols had resulted in the assassination of William of Nassau.

Filled with hate, ignorant yobs get on the Internet and learn one or
two facts from a web site/

And you think a so-called written constitution would prevent something
similar? Like all those arrested after 9/11? Try Weimar (or even the
Soviet Union) if you want examples of an apparently good constitution
that was simply ignored by those in power.

ONLY IN AMERICA would Donald Rumsfeld be in legal trouble as he is,
because as it happened, his violation of the Constitution will not go
unpunished. How dare you, in view of the excesses of the British
Empire (such as the mass murder of Sikh protestors in Armitsar in 1919
by Reginald Dyer) act as if your constitution protects the powerless.
The constitution only protects your Parliament, and you just had a
demonstration of how Parliament members will abuse their
untouchability.

The British Constitution is written, by the way (Magna Carta, Bill of
Rights, and various Representation of the People Acts). It's just not
all in one document.

This is false. Cf Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the
Constitution. Cf. Loveland, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and
Human Rights. Parliament is a constituent as well as legislative
assembly unbound by any document whatsoever.

Piss off, Spinny. And meanwhile I suggest you take the trouble to read
the 1689 Bill of Rights. You might learn something.

You piss off, and read (in addition to the 1689 Bill of "Rights" which
I have read) the full text of Dicey and Loveland. And if you don't
like what I've said, come to the Rugby Sevens this month in Hong Kong
and we'll sort it out.

 

[spinoza1111]

Every so often I toy with the idea of correcting one or two of the many
errors in a Nilges post.  However:

1.  I've corrected him on a few of his claims about me in the past, and
he keeps making the obviously false claims.

You keep saying this, but:

* In programming you've proved you're a script kiddie
* In other areas you are without culture

You don't give references for your claims. You did not source "C: the
Complete Nonsense".

Instead, you make blanket and defamatory claims.

I have complained to Apress management about your behavior, since it
harms their business. If you continue I will complain to the
management of your employer.

People come here to find technical information. They don't get it from
you. Instead they get, occasionally, buggy and poorly formatted code.

2.  Even though I suspect some of it is technically defamatory per se,
it's not as though anyone's going to believe anything so obviously kooky.

If this were a more chatty forum, I'd probably interact with him for
the lulz, but Usenet tends to favor staying more focused on actual
technical discussion.  He gives every impression of being just shy of

But you don't participate in "actual technical discussion". Instead,
you examine code to see whether it is written according to the deviant
rules you've learned exclusively on the job from managements who
persecute and deride quality because all they care about is money.
When discussion gets into scientific areas, you start mocking the
discussants as "trolls" in an ignorant fashion. You're possibly thirty
years old, yet you appear to be still playing video games. You're a
child.

completely ineducable, and I don't really see much reason to pursue
things further.  People can read my code and make their own decisions
about its quality.  

You repeatedly post a "dignified exit" referring to issues second
hand, having shown that you are in fact an incompetent coder. You're
too cowardly to read or respond to private communications.

And you are just as responsible for continuing these flame wars as
anyone else. The difference between you and me is that I contribute
(real references in the above constitutional law discussion: real code
and issues in the string replacement discussion) and you DESTROY.

 

[spinoza1111]

Right, if the first 2615 complaints haven't had any effect, surely

They are not "complaints", Kiki. They were personal attacks on my
standing and competence motivated by envy of same and my ability to
write, made by people without standing or competence.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Are you you idiots seriously going to respond to the latest wave of
nonsensical ramblings from this lunatic?  There is really no excuse
for continuing to add this kind of noise.

no. And though in the past I've responded to spinoza I've tried
(mostly) to confine myself to technical stuff. The current pair of
threads is just craziness and baiting. I think I might thread plonk.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

Another instalment in this random selection of Nilges' lies.

Recently he has gone manic, posting dozens of missives every day, full
of pompous boasting and vicious tirades against his enemies, past,
present and imaginary.

Just a couple of the most outrageous and entertainingly absurd posts
to give a flavour of this :

You backstabbed Herb Schildt and paid your way into your current job,
and you're here for commercial gain as an employee of Wind River
Systems. I suggest you leave.


It is to me an amusing paradox that I'm the best C programmer in this
newsgroup while not really knowing dick about C.


Excuse me. I am not here to provoke anyone.

That's a killer.

Mostly they're so full of wild invective you can feel almost feel the
spittle spraying on the keyboard.

 

[Seebs]

Another instalment in this random selection of Nilges' lies.

These are AWESOME!

Recently he has gone manic, posting dozens of missives every day, full
of pompous boasting and vicious tirades against his enemies, past,
present and imaginary.

I was wondering why clc always had fewer posts in it than the group
browser suggested.

Just a couple of the most outrageous and entertainingly absurd posts
to give a flavour of this :

.... wow, that is beautiful.

I'm pretty sure I can sort of trace the heritage of that one. He's taken
the fact that standards committee members must pay dues to mean that I
"paid my way" onto the standards committee, which makes about as much sense
as accusing Doug Gwyn of "paying his way" onto the standards committee (via
his employer, presumably). And therefore, I "paid my way" into my current
job.

I have no clue about the backstabbing remark. I'm pretty sure that
backstabbing implies some kind of relationship prior to the "backstabbing",
but I really don't get it.

And no, I'm not here for commercial gain as an employee of $DAYJOB. I'm
here because I love working with and talking about C, and because it's
fun. Back when I was trying to figure out why I couldn't use getch()
on my Amiga, various CLC folks got me unstuck and pointed me towards a way
of thinking about C that has made the language a joy to work with for the
last twenty years or so. I figure I owe the newbie programmers of the world
an occasional tip. (... Oh, who am I kidding. I still learn more than I
teach.)

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

These are AWESOME!


I was wondering why clc always had fewer posts in it than the group
browser suggested.


... wow, that is beautiful.

I'm pretty sure I can sort of trace the heritage of that one.  He's taken
the fact that standards committee members must pay dues to mean that I
"paid my way" onto the standards committee, which makes about as much sense
as accusing Doug Gwyn of "paying his way" onto the standards committee (via
his employer, presumably).  And therefore, I "paid my way" into my current
job.

No, at this time it appears you backstabbed your way and that you get
other people to fix your errors (switch case, off by one, if statement
leakage, etc.)

I have no clue about the backstabbing remark.  I'm pretty sure that
backstabbing implies some kind of relationship prior to the "backstabbing",
but I really don't get it.

I believe that on the job you like to talk about people's "bugs" and
ability behind their back while constantly excusing your own errors as
ADHD. This belief is based on your behavior in this newsgroup.

And no, I'm not here for commercial gain as an employee of $DAYJOB.  I'm
here because I love working with and talking about C, and because it's
fun.  Back when I was trying to figure out why I couldn't use getch()
on my Amiga, various CLC folks got me unstuck and pointed me towards a way
of thinking about C that has made the language a joy to work with for the
last twenty years or so.  I figure I owe the newbie programmers of the world
an occasional tip.  (... Oh, who am I kidding.  I still learn more than I
teach.)

I'm sure that the newbies don't need to infer from the switch
statements you present in pseudo.c (after two months work) that a
magic break will be inserted in an empty labeled switch case, while
this break is not inserted into non-empty switch cases. But hey, I
know dick about C. Perhaps you got that rule into the standard. Maybe
you learned it from Schildt. Maybe it's a hidden feature of GNU.

You see, Peter, I know your type. You run around destroying people and
you create confusion with your lies.

Grow the **** up.

 

[spinoza1111]

These are AWESOME!


I was wondering why clc always had fewer posts in it than the group
browser suggested.


... wow, that is beautiful.

I'm pretty sure I can sort of trace the heritage of that one.  He's taken
the fact that standards committee members must pay dues to mean that I
"paid my way" onto the standards committee, which makes about as much sense
as accusing Doug Gwyn of "paying his way" onto the standards committee (via
his employer, presumably).  And therefore, I "paid my way" into my current
job.

In my opinion, people on standards committees should not be able to
pay and be a member. Whether academic or corporate, they should be
invited. And most of them should be academic, not because academics
are smarter (although they often are), simply because they are
independent of vendor pressure, which in the case of C99 produced
hideous monstrosity.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

You can't get a better example of a Nilgean barefaced denial of the
facts than this. Though he professes to welcome corrections, he can't
help but perceive anyone pointing out his errors as attacking his
manhood, and lashes back reflexively. (One explanation of his
inability to hold a job in the field.)

Ben Bacarisse spent considerable time and effort to disentangle and
critique Nilges' code, for which he was rewarded with being called an
"idiot", "infantilized", "deskilled" and an "asshole". Descriptions
which Nilges insists are not insults, but simply a measured response
in his eyes.
Evidently not only is Nilges' dialect of C unique, so is his English.

 

[spinoza1111]

You can't get a better example of a Nilgean barefaced denial of the
facts than this. Though he professes to welcome corrections, he can't
help but perceive anyone pointing out his errors as attacking his
manhood, and lashes back reflexively. (One explanation of his
inability to hold a job in the field.)

You're here to bully: you don't contribute code.

Ben Bacarisse spent considerable time and effort to disentangle and
critique Nilges' code, for which he was rewarded with being called an
"idiot", "infantilized", "deskilled" and an "asshole". Descriptions

No, that was for accidentally embarassing me. I apologized to him for
my misapprehension of what was his mistake. In fact, in the case you
mention, I'd immediately corrected my code based on Ben's correction
and credited him: but he doesn't want me to credit him.

which Nilges insists are not insults, but simply  a measured response
in his eyes.
Evidently not only is Nilges' dialect of C unique, so is his English.

Taken out of context. Yes, sometimes, he's an idiot when he doesn't
see the forest for the trees, or, like most programmers (who are
idiots in my opinion), thinks grammatical English in comments are
"convoluted".

Yes, asshole, I was trying to credit him.
Yup. I'm not a prissy little GIRL like so many younger men who won't
use "foul" language but instead prefer on the job backstabbing,
bullying, and personal destruction.

 

[blmblm]

[ snip ]

Indeed they have, and part of the problem are people who don't want to
soil their hands by defending their fellow human beings.

Perhaps the problem is not that we're not willing to defend our fellow
human beings but that we don't feel that this is a case in which such
defense is appropriate. (I can't speak for either of the other two, but
that's the case for me.)

[ snip ]

 

[spinoza1111]

[ snip ]

Indeed they have, and part of the problem are people who don't want to
soil their hands by defending their fellow human beings.

Perhaps the problem is not that we're not willing to defend our fellow
human beings but that we don't feel that this is a case in which such
defense is appropriate.  (I can't speak for either of the other two, but
that's the case for me.)

Yes, we must be "appropriate". What puzzles me, however, is how people
in corporations and here can appeal to a norm which is based not only
on shared values but of knowledge, almost invisible here and
deliberately hidden in most corporations, about other people's
motivations and real feelings.

Basically, your notion of appropriateness is fucked up. This is
because as in the corporation it allows minatory language as long as
the language uses the right shibboleths and appeals to clerical
conventions easily understood, but bans self-defense.

[ snip ]

 

[blmblm]

<[email protected]> wrote:

[ snip ]

Julienne, blm, and Malcolm, I shall not participate in these newsgroup
until you find it in yourselves to complain to Heathfield and Seebach

(I think all three have declined to do so.)

Indeed they have, and part of the problem are people who don't want to

("Part of the problem are"? Yeah well.)

Yes, we must be "appropriate". What puzzles me, however, is how people
in corporations and here can appeal to a norm which is based not only
on shared values but of knowledge, almost invisible here and
deliberately hidden in most corporations, about other people's
motivations and real feelings.

Basically, your notion of appropriateness is fucked up. This is
because as in the corporation it allows minatory language as long as
the language uses the right shibboleths and appeals to clerical
conventions easily understood, but bans self-defense.

You know, I knew when I wrote the post to which you're replying
that "appropriate" was not exactly the right word to express
my intended meaning [*], but I couldn't think of a better one,
and I still can't.

[*] Because it has associations with -- notions that I also seem
unable to put a name to.

I can't really make sense of your reply, but there may be
a connection between your intended meaning and these, um,
inappropriate associations.

Going back to the main point of discussion, though:

You appear to be saying that I and two other posters do not
complain about the behavior of Richard Heathfield and Peter
Seebach because we do not want to "soil [our] hands by defending
[our] fellow human beings". I can only speak for myself, but
that does not strike me as an accurate description of my reasons
for not complaining.

 

[BruceS]

On Mar 28, 1:50 am, (e-mail address removed) <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes, we must be "appropriate". What puzzles me, however, is how people
in corporations and here can appeal to a norm which is based not only
on shared values but of knowledge, almost invisible here and
deliberately hidden in most corporations, about other people's
motivations and real feelings.

Basically, your notion of appropriateness is fucked up. This is
because as in the corporation it allows minatory language as long as
the language uses the right shibboleths and appeals to clerical
conventions easily understood, but bans self-defense.

You know, I knew when I wrote the post to which you're replying
that "appropriate" was not exactly the right word to express
my intended meaning [*], but I couldn't think of a better one,
and I still can't.  

Perhaps you meant to say "justified". Are you trying to say that
defense of spinoza1111 in this is not justified, or that any
involvement in the conflict is {uninteresting|pointless|
counterproductive}, or something else entirely?
HTH