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

  • Thread starter Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
  • Start date
T

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

---------- OFF-TOPIC ----------

This is an off-topic post for "comp.lang.c" and I would like to
apologise to the readers for inflicting this post on the group. Nobody
here is obligated to read this post or to respond to it.

I would like to respond to Mr Richard Heathfield's public accusations
of racism against me on this newsgroup, and also to his unrelenting
attempts at character-assassination on this newsgroup. His most recent
attempt took place on December 13th 2008 in the thread entitled
"exectuable file runs on some computers, not all". His post can be
viewed here:

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

From reading Mr Heathfield's posts, one would get the impression that
he considers himself to be a moral, ethical, polite, well-educated,
intelligent, knowledgeable and professional man. Also he considers
himself to be a devout Christian, a religion emphasizing kindness and
compassion toward fellow people. When conducting himself in an online
discussion, Mr Heathfield exhaults himself to a moral highground based
on these premises. What flies in the face of this is his malicious
behaviour of attempting to character-assassinate people. On December
13th 2008, he went to the bother of verbatim quoting a post of mine
from many months ago; he sat at his computer and did a search to find
that post of mine, and then replicated that post here in an attempt to
character-assassinate me. It is clear that his actions took effort and
were driven by a sadistic impulse. I wouldn't be surprised if he had
many posts by many different people saved to his hard disk and
archived for use in future character-assassination endeavors.

Mr Heathfield presently has me in his killfile for what he has
publicly cited on this newsgroup as "racism". Before I begin, I would
like to clarify the term "racism". The term "racism" is quite
ambiguous nowadays because it is used by so many different socio-
economic classes in so many different contexts. The word is used by
intellectual and non-intellectual people alike. For instance, you have
the "racism" of idiots like the Ku Klux Klan who hate black people
simply because they're black and no other reason (this particular kind
of "racism" is considered taboo by many people in the world including
myself). Then you have the "racism" of people such as those who have
had many negative experiences with people of a given race in a given
area, and have learned to avoid those people in that area. These two
kinds of "racism" are so far separated from each other than I no
longer use the term "racism" at all because it is so ambiguous. There
was a time not too long ago that I would consider myself "racist", in
fact I even publicly declared myself to be "racist against Roma
gypsies" on this very newsgroup, but since then I have put more
thought into the term and have changed my opinion.

Some months ago, I composed an off-topic rant of a post on this
newsgroup which mentioned Roma gypsies. I was aggravated at the time,
and I apologise for using this newsgroup as a vent. I have no excuse
for my actions, I'm sorry and it won't happen again.

In my original off-topic rant of a post that mentioned Roma gypsies, I
heaped negative criticism on Roma gypsies, criticism which stemmed
from my own personal direct observations and experiences with them. I
did not criticise these people because of their race or ancestry, but
rather because of their unsavoury actions which I described in detail.
If I had had pleasant observations and experiences with these people,
I would not have given negative criticism. The fact that Roma gypsies
belong to a different "race" than me is purely coincidental, and I
just as easily criticise people of my own race (for instance I have
many times criticised the people who lived within a mile of me in
Ireland who spent their weekend nights joyriding cars they robbed from
their own housing estate).

I am originally from the country of Ireland in Western Europe.
Currently I am living in the country of Laos in Southeast Asia. I have
experienced two totally different cultures, with totally different
races of people and different spoken languages. If I were racist then
I would have a difficult time settling into a foreign culture,
adopting foreign customs and learning a foreign language. Thankfully
though I am thriving here and having the best days of my life.

Regarding the criticism I made against Roma gypsies, well I forfeit
this opportunity to retract it. The criticism I gave was truthful,
unexaggerated and based upon my own personal observations and
experiences with these people. In my life I will continue to criticise
groups of people who act in ways unbecoming a human, regardless of
race, hairstyle, spoken accent, or any identifiable feature.

To be blunt, just because a people is of a different race than you,
that doesn't mean they're out of bounds for criticism. I would even go
on to criticise the people who attempt to condone the actions of other
peoples simply because those peoples are of a different race and
should somehow receive preferential treatment which exempts them from
criticism. This preferential treatment is "racism".

Mr Heathfield is an intelligent, well-educated, knowledgeable man, and
he is very apt at using professionalism to disguise his sadistic
intentions. He has trolled thi newsgroup of comp.lang.c for many
years, and for the most part his trolling has gone unobserved. I would
like to think in a perfect world that no amount of expertise or
knowledge should excuse malicious and hostile behaviour.

Thank you for your attention.

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
 
T

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

I put "[OFF-TOPIC]" in the title of this thread but unfortunately
Google Groups appears to have removed it before posting. My apologises
to anyone that filters by thread title.

By the way does any know a good free news server I can use? I began
using Google Groups because I lost access to my news server when I
changed Internet Service Provider.
 
V

vippstar

I put "[OFF-TOPIC]" in the title of this thread but unfortunately
Google Groups appears to have removed it before posting. My apologises
to anyone that filters by thread title.

Your posts are always borderline off-topic (and sometimes entirely off-
topic) and your behavior is not proper. I'd say you're a troll.
By the way does any know a good free news server I can use? I began
using Google Groups because I lost access to my news server when I
changed Internet Service Provider.

Off-topic.
 
B

Bartc

Richard Heathfield said:
(e-mail address removed) said:
I put "[OFF-TOPIC]" in the title of this thread but unfortunately
Google Groups appears to have removed it before posting. My apologises
to anyone that filters by thread title.

Your posts are always borderline off-topic (and sometimes entirely off-
topic) and your behavior is not proper. I'd say you're a troll.

He may or may not be a troll. It's often hard to tell. But his choice of
subject line is dreadful. I bear him no animosity whatsoever. I don't bear
animosity towards any racist. But there is a difference between not
bearing animosity towards someone on the one hand, and remaining silent
when they exhibit discriminatory attitudes towards particular ethnic
groups. Niemoller, Burke (attrib), and all that.

A technical discussion should be above the personal views of the
participants in unrelated areas.

Maybe it's time to just forget it instead of forever bringing it up again.
When we make the mistake of basing our assessment of a person not on that
person's actions, but upon characteristics over which the person has no
control (e.g. ethnicity, gender, whatever), we tread a very dangerous path
indeed. People are, first and foremost, individuals rather than mere group
members, and they should be treated as such.

Who hasn't ever made such an assessment?
 
K

Kenny McCormack

I put "[OFF-TOPIC]" in the title of this thread but unfortunately
Google Groups appears to have removed it before posting. My apologises
to anyone that filters by thread title.

Your posts are always borderline off-topic (and sometimes entirely off-
topic) and your behavior is not proper. I'd say you're a troll.
By the way does any know a good free news server I can use? I began
using Google Groups because I lost access to my news server when I
changed Internet Service Provider.

Off-topic.

Man, do you need to get a life!
 
V

vippstar

(e-mail address removed) said:
I put "[OFF-TOPIC]" in the title of this thread but unfortunately
Google Groups appears to have removed it before posting. My apologises
to anyone that filters by thread title.
Your posts are always borderline off-topic (and sometimes entirely off-
topic) and your behavior is not proper. I'd say you're a troll.
He may or may not be a troll. It's often hard to tell. But his choice of
subject line is dreadful. I bear him no animosity whatsoever. I don't bear
animosity towards any racist. But there is a difference between not
bearing animosity towards someone on the one hand, and remaining silent
when they exhibit discriminatory attitudes towards particular ethnic
groups. Niemoller, Burke (attrib), and all that.

A technical discussion should be above the personal views of the
participants in unrelated areas.

A technical discussion should be above all the personal views of the
participants, related or not.
Maybe it's time to just forget it instead of forever bringing it up again..


Who hasn't ever made such an assessment?

So you justify doing something wrong just because everyone has at
least once in their life done something wrong?
 
T

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

I bear him no animosity whatsoever. I don't bear
animosity towards any racist. But there is a difference between not
bearing animosity towards someone on the one hand, and remaining silent
when they exhibit discriminatory attitudes towards particular ethnic
groups.


Mr Heathfield is lying about his motives here. Allow me to explain.
The discussion went as follows:

Myself:

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

Ian Collins:

"Who said what?"

Mr Heathfield:

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

As you can see, I did not "exhibit discriminatory attitudes towards
particular ethnic groups" as Mr Heathfield alleges. Mr Heathfield
pounced on the opportunity to character-assassinate me for his own
sadistic ends. There was no other goal in mind, he is full of venom.

When we make the mistake of basing our assessment of a person not on that
person's actions, but upon characteristics over which the person has no
control (e.g. ethnicity, gender, whatever), we tread a very dangerous path
indeed.


A foolish man living a pipe dream. In real life, stereotypes and
prejudice are the things that keep you alive. When I lived in Ireland,
there were certain groups of people that I avoided because I knew that
if I mixed with them, they would rob me and assault me. Here in Laos,
there is a certain group of people that I avoid because I would be
dead within a day or two if I were to mix with them (regardless of
whether I were to pay them in full for the diamonds they're selling).

If you tell a child to have no prejudice or to not stereotype people,
then you're doing a very foolish thing indeed. If you think upholding
the virtues of humanity is more important then your child's life, then
you're best off sacrificing the child at birth because the be-all and
end-all of life is that you have to step in shit to get through it.

People are, first and foremost, individuals rather than mere group
members, and they should be treated as such.


Incorrect. The groups you belong to say a lot about who you are. As a
man once said, "Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are".

Here's an extreme example:
Is there a such thing as a good Nazi? No there's not. In order for
a Nazi to be good, they have to distance themselves from Nazism and
claim to not be a Nazi. They have to openly say that they condemn
Nazism and that they don't want to be considered a Nazi.

Another thing, don't think that a person is tied to their race or to
the colour of their skin. Here in Laos, if you're white and don't want
to be categorised as a "Westerner", then it's a simple as changing
your clothes. It also helps a lot if you speak the local language.
When I'm up a the Friendship Bridge between Laos and Thailand, taxi
drivers come over to harass me but they turn around straight away when
I reply to them in Lao telling them I don't want a taxi and I don't
want drugs.

If someone wears the clothes of a certain group, maintains the same
poor hygiene as members of that group, wears the same gold teeth as
members of that group, then I'll categorise them as "being a member of
that group". If that person doesn't want to be categorised as a member
of that particular group, they can remove their gold teeth, take a
bath, and change their clothes. By Christ if someone were to approach
me with such sentiment then I'd gladly buy them clothes and let them
use my shower.
 
T

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

Nor is anyone here under any obligation to provide technical
support to those whose actions promote discrimination against ethnic
minorities.


And here is Mr Heathfield with a sweeping generalisation of his own:
Because I criticised one group which just happened to be an ethnic
minority, that of course means that I must promote discrimination
against all ethnic minorities.

There are some absolutely wonderful ethnic minorities in this world
who have warmer hearts than a Westerner will ever experience.


This is a classic Usenet argument (because Usenauts are easily bored), but
it is deeply flawed. It is based on the assumption that problems will
vanish if we cease to discuss them or care about them. Nothing could be
further from the truth.



Of course instead, one should perform regular character-
assassinations. I have yet to hear Mr Heathfield explain his goal in
launching the unprovoked character-assassination earlier today.


This is the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" argument, but
it is misapplied here. Nobody is stoning Mr O hEilidhe.



Are you sure about that? The unprovoked attack you launched earlier
today would suggest otherwise:

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


But to answer your question anyway, yes, no doubt we all make such sweeping
generalisations from time to time. What, then, is the proper course for
those who witness this? To remain silent? We know where that leads.



I addressed this issue else-thread. If you don't want to be
categorised as a member of a particular group, then don't advertise
yourself as a member of that group. Change your clothes. Remove your
gold teeth. Take a bath.
 
S

srikar2097

take it easy dude!! There is no reason to get so bent up...

Even if anyone says somethings you ARE what you BELIEVE...
 
K

Keith Thompson

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe said:
And here is Mr Heathfield with a sweeping generalisation of his own:
Because I criticised one group which just happened to be an ethnic
minority, that of course means that I must promote discrimination
against all ethnic minorities.
[...]

Nobody has accused you of promoting discrimination against all ethnic
minorities. You have repeatedly and unapologetically promoted
discrimination against one ethnic minority, and that is quite bad
enough. I don't suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to post here,
or even that others shouldn't respond to you, but I personally choose
not to help you here, simply because you are a racist.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe said:
I put "[OFF-TOPIC]" in the title of this thread but unfortunately
Google Groups appears to have removed it before posting. My apologises
to anyone that filters by thread title.

The "[OFF-TOPIC]" did appear in the original post; it didn't appear in
the followup.
By the way does any know a good free news server I can use? I began
using Google Groups because I lost access to my news server when I
changed Internet Service Provider.

Yes, I do. I'll tell you more if you promise not to discuss "Roma
gypsies" in this newsgroup in the future, regardless of what you feel
to be any provocation. I don't expect you to change your mind, and
I'm not asking you not to discuss the topic elsewhere, just here.
 
B

Bartc

Mark McIntyre said:
Uh, Richard wasn't the one bringing it up.

Uh, yes he did, in a post today (13-Dec-08) and in another on 13-Nov-08.
And as well as the two above references, I'd quote Santayana at you.


Does that make it ok?

No, but the OP was castigated at the time and that should have been the end
of it.
 
J

jacob navia

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe said:
---------- OFF-TOPIC ----------


I would like to respond to Mr Richard Heathfield's public accusations
of racism against me on this newsgroup, and also to his unrelenting
attempts at character-assassination on this newsgroup. His most recent
attempt took place on December 13th 2008 in the thread entitled
"exectuable file runs on some computers, not all". His post can be
viewed here:

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

In that post Heathfield cites you:

"But then there's one immigrant people here that I truly despise: Roma
gypsies. These people have no pride whatsoever. They really are rats. They
come into my country illegally and create encapments at motorway
junctions. They teach their children how to walk in a way that makes their
bare leg look mangled, and then they send their kids to beg
between cars on the road at a busy motorway junction. They have a
mouth full of gold teeth (yes, actual gold, the rare chemical
element), and they drive BMW cars (for those who don't know, BMW is a
luxury car make), but yet they send their children to beg on the
roads. They don't wash their bodies."

end quote

This is really too much. I am not a fan of Heathfield but you are
clearly over the edge here man.
Some months ago, I composed an off-topic rant of a post on this
newsgroup which mentioned Roma gypsies. I was aggravated at the time,
and I apologise for using this newsgroup as a vent. I have no excuse
for my actions, I'm sorry and it won't happen again.

What wont happen again?

That you vent your racism here?

Or that you abandon your racist views?

In my original off-topic rant of a post that mentioned Roma gypsies, I
heaped negative criticism on Roma gypsies, criticism which stemmed
from my own personal direct observations and experiences with them. I
did not criticise these people because of their race or ancestry, but
rather because of their unsavoury actions which I described in detail.
If I had had pleasant observations and experiences with these people,
I would not have given negative criticism. The fact that Roma gypsies
belong to a different "race" than me is purely coincidental, and I
just as easily criticise people of my own race (for instance I have
many times criticised the people who lived within a mile of me in
Ireland who spent their weekend nights joyriding cars they robbed from
their own housing estate).

Look, you are speaking about some gypsies. There are thieves that are
gypsies, as there are thieves that are Irish. Let's not forget French
thieves and U.S. thieves, like Mr Madoff, for instance, that stole 50
billion.

All people of the earth have thieves, people that do not wash themselves
and people that are nasty in some ways. But what you fail to understand
is that many gypsies have nothing to do with the people you describe.
That there are wonderful artists that are gypsies, that there is a
gypsie culture that exists since millenia.

You should remember that Hitler shared your views and started an
extermination program against gypsies that were killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

You spoke just hate against gypsies as a people. Not against *some*
gypsies that robbed you. You generalize to ALL of them and that is
racism.

By the way, you were never attacked by gypsies, and they are peaceful
people. They do not start extermination programs like germans did with
gypsies or english did with blacks, or U.S. did with native american
indians.

I agree with the sentence of Heathfield:

<quote>
Knowing that he has said this (and never retracted it as far as I'm aware),
I can't imagine why anyone would bother soliciting his opinions about
anybody or anything, let alone advancing his career by answering his
technical questions.
<end quote>
 
K

Kenny McCormack

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe said:
A foolish man living a pipe dream. In real life, stereotypes and
prejudice are the things that keep you alive. When I lived in Ireland,
there were certain groups of people that I avoided because I knew that
if I mixed with them, they would rob me and assault me. Here in Laos,
there is a certain group of people that I avoid because I would be
dead within a day or two if I were to mix with them (regardless of
whether I were to pay them in full for the diamonds they're selling).

You are of course, 100% correct. Unfortunately, it (being honest about
this sort of thing) just doesn't fly in the world of Usenet. As you've
seen, in the world of online and Usenet, everyone has to pretend that
things are other than they are.
 
K

Kenny McCormack

....
This is really too much. I am not a fan of Heathfield but you are
clearly over the edge here man.

This is truly "stop the presses" material! Jacob and Heathfield taking
the same side in an argument.

Both are, unfortunately, wrong. Jacob is usually on the right side of
things, but, alas, not here.
 
J

J. J. Farrell

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe said:
---------- OFF-TOPIC ----------

...

Some months ago, I composed an off-topic rant of a post on this
newsgroup which mentioned Roma gypsies. I was aggravated at the time,
and I apologise for using this newsgroup as a vent. I have no excuse
for my actions, I'm sorry and it won't happen again.

In my original off-topic rant of a post that mentioned Roma gypsies, I
heaped negative criticism on Roma gypsies, criticism which stemmed
from my own personal direct observations and experiences with them. I
did not criticise these people because of their race or ancestry, but
rather because of their unsavoury actions which I described in detail.
If I had had pleasant observations and experiences with these people,
I would not have given negative criticism. The fact that Roma gypsies
belong to a different "race" than me is purely coincidental, and I
just as easily criticise people of my own race (for instance I have
many times criticised the people who lived within a mile of me in
Ireland who spent their weekend nights joyriding cars they robbed from
their own housing estate).

How do you word your criticism of this group? Do you start with
something like "There's one people here that I truly despise: the
Irish"? If not, is it perhaps because you're talking about the behaviour
of a particular group of people who happen to be Irish, but recognise
that their behaviour is not representative of the entire Irish race? But
for another race you assume that the behaviour of the few individuals
you see is representative of a people distributed around the world?

As long as it's factual, accurate and fair, there's no problem with
criticism of a set of individuals. It's assigning that criticism to the
entire race to which those individuals belong which is racist.
 
B

Bartc

Jack Klein said:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:49:14 -0800 (PST), Tomás Ó hÉilidhe


Before I plonk you again, most likely forever this time, I'd like to
point out the falsehoods in your post.

The word "racism" did not appear in Richard's post. So he did not
accuse you, in any way, shape, or form of racism. So your statement
to the contrary is either an error or a deliberate lie, an attempt to
distort his position.

The word "racist" did appear here however:

Richard Heathfield said:
I find it surprising that so many people who witnessed that discussion and
should therefore be aware of his racist attitude continue to enter into
further technical discussions with him despite the absence of any apology
or retraction on his behalf. (But then I find many things surprising.)

(I don't know how to do proper message ids; this one was dated 13-Nov-08,
subject:
"Re: Cross-platform: Coloured text, Networking, Multithreading")
 
B

Ben Bacarisse

Anthony Fremont said:
That is simply not true.

Yes it is.
He may not haved used that specific word in the
original post, but his intent was clear enough. At any rate, Richard
directly referred to him as a racist in this very thread.

Subsequently, yes, but the post Jack Klein replied to was the first
post in this thread. At that time Richard Heathfield's only comment
(in another thread) was a direct, verbatim, quote of the OP's words
and an invitation to readers to consider if they wanted to assist
people who posted such remarks.
I'm not taking
sides, but you appear to be the one distorting things.

What does it look like when you do take sides, then?
 
T

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe

Nobody has accused you of promoting discrimination against all ethnic
minorities.



You're correct, Mr Heathfield didn't say "all", but he did use the
plural "ethnic minorities".


 You have repeatedly and unapologetically promoted
discrimination against one ethnic minority, and that is quite bad
enough.



Why are you so focused on them being an ethnic minority? Why should
that have anything to do with anything? If they were white, would it
be OK to criticise their lifestyle?


 I don't suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to post here,
or even that others shouldn't respond to you, but I personally choose
not to help you here, simply because you are a racist.



Using the term "racist" implies that their race is in factor in my
prejudice against them. If a white person were to do the things that
these people do, I'd be just as disgusted and I'd give just as much
criticism. Note, in my original original original post from way way
back, I criticised the actions of these people and did not in any way
criticise their creed, ancestry, gene pool...

Your definition of "racism" is a cop-out.
 
B

Ben Bacarisse

Anthony Fremont said:
Richard had made the post I'm referring to at around 8:12am (local to me) in
this thread. Jack made his post after 5:00pm (local to me). I understand
USENET propagation is funky at best, but I'd say that Jack had plenty of
time to see Richard's post.

Yes, I knew that was your point, but I disagree. I certainly saw all
the subsequent remarks, but I would also have made the same comment
(just as late) had Jack not already made it better.

The OP cited a message that was little more that a straight quote of
his own words as Richard's most recent attempt at character
assassination. The OP offered no other evidence for his claim of
character assassination and cited just the one message.

I suspect the OP is simply embarrassed to see his words repeated but
rather than fess up and retract them he chose to attack the quoter of
his own words. He did include a rambling explanation that included an
apology for using the group to vent his anger, but it stopped a long
way short of retracting anything of substance. I can only conclude
(until he corrects me) that he stands by what he said and what was
subsequently quoted. If that is true, Richard's post is closer to
character illumination than assassination.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,754
Messages
2,569,527
Members
44,999
Latest member
MakersCBDGummiesReview

Latest Threads

Top