Richard Heathfield's lie

[spinoza1111]

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 (e-mail address removed), 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]

spinoza1111 ha scritto:


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.

 

[Argonaut]

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

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]

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.

 

[Argonaut]

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.

 

[Seebs]

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

 

[spinoza1111]

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

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?


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.

 

[Argonaut]

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.

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.

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

Maybe you can fool yourself.
No one else.


And yet -- you have not, and never will.

How do you know, Argonaut?

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.

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.

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

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]

"spinoza1111" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
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.

 

[Argonaut]

How do you know, Argonaut?

Put up or shut up.

Writing isn't "squealing like a stuck pig" except to Fascists,
Argonaut.

Starting several threads whining about it is.

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.

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.

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

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.

Starting several threads whining about it is.



Okay, you've proved you're an idiot.


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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Keith Thompson]

In


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.

[...]

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 "(e-mail address removed)". The fact that
"(e-mail address removed)" is mangled to "(e-mail address removed)" when
the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.

One such posting has:
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

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.

[...]

Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
were, in turn:

(e-mail address removed)
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 "(e-mail address removed)" 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.

 

[Herbert Rosenau]

spinoza1111 ha scritto:


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!

 

[spinoza1111]

Gee, you're still an asshole.

In

spinoza1111wrote:


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.

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.

Irrelevant, since none of them identified (e-mail address removed) 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.

Clearly wrong.



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.

Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
were, in turn:

(e-mail address removed)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.

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.

"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.

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

In

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.

[...]

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 "(e-mail address removed)".  The fact that
"(e-mail address removed)" is mangled to "(e-mail address removed)" 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: <[email protected]>

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.

[...]

Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
were, in turn:

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 "(e-mail address removed)" 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
(e-mail address removed).

 

[spinoza1111]

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

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 "(e-mail address removed)".

You were more fortunate than me, then, since I performed three separate
searches, none of which returned any hits.

   The fact that

"(e-mail address removed)" is mangled to "(e-mail address removed)" when
the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.

One such posting has:
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

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."