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 spinoza1...@yahoo.com, 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 ha scritto:

> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.

are you a judge?

On Dec 25, 1:19=A0am, superpollo <ute...@esempio.net> wrote:
> spinoza1111 ha scritto:
>
> > defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>
> are you a judge?

You know what I mean. Legal positivism is in fact the belief that
lawyers predict the outcome of cases so as not to waste time. Clients
also make this prediction. There statements that so and so is "guilty"
are made legally in an adversary system because it's the client's
right, and the lawyer's responsibility, to claim the guilt of their
opponents.

This is but one example of Heathfield's conduct. Many people here are
tired of him.

Seebach is also guilty of libel since in "C: The Complete Nonsense"
Seebach posted malicious falsehoods intended to harm Herb Schildt and
the harm occured. Having his name mocked in a childish fashion by
being transformed into "Bullschildt" caused Herb and his family
psychological distress and lost income.

spinoza1111 ha scritto:
> On Dec 25, 1:19 am, superpollo <ute...@esempio.net> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 ha scritto:
>>
>>> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>> are you a judge?
> 
> You know what I mean.

so. you say you would hire a solicitor in uk against rh and ps? why dont 
you just go ahead with that instead of simply threaten to do so?

i dont get it, really...

bye

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claims
>that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
>searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
>
>It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.

Have you ever, even once, followed through?

Do you think anyone takes you seriously when you have made the same
empty threats over 600 times?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?&q=spinoza1111+libel
Results 1 - 10 of about 661 for spinoza1111 libel

Not even discussing the merits of a libel that consists of claiming
someone did not make a post.  

Argonaut wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
> <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claims
>> that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
>> searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
>>
>> It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
> 
> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
> 
> Do you think anyone takes you seriously when you have made the same
> empty threats over 600 times?
> 
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?&q=spinoza1111+libel
> Results 1 - 10 of about 661 for spinoza1111 libel
> 
> Not even discussing the merits of a libel that consists of claiming
> someone did not make a post.  
> 
Actually it is worse than that. Richard Heathfield searched for 
spinoza1111 and that came up blank. So his assertion was entirely 
correct. 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.

For some reason I mote and beam come to mind. Richard along with a 
number of other people that spinoza1111 insists on viewing as members of 
a dark conspiracy spends a good deal of time trying to help others.

On Dec 25, 2:38=A0am, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claims
> >that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
> >searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
>
> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> Have you ever, even once, followed through?

The issue isn't whether I "follow through": as in the corporation or
dysfunctional lower middle class family which prepares individuals for
the corporation, ethical discussion consists of changing the subject
to something more comfortable, and changing ethical canons to
something that fit the intolerable situation in which the middle class
family or corporate employee finds themselves. It is very disturbing
to you, probably, that Richard Heathfield gets away with lying, so
let's change the subject to whether and how I "follow through".

But as it is, the first step in any legal process is settling without
lawyers and out of court. My goal here is to get Richard Heathfield to
withdraw his lie without using lawyers, then to use a lawyer to get
him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
necessary, to take him to court.

If you would like to join the complaint and possibly a miniature
"class action" group lawsuit, send me email.

I am following through in the proper way, and the issue is that a
leading figure of this newsgroup is a liar and cannot be trustworthy.

>
> Do you think anyone takes you seriously when you have made the same
> empty threats over 600 times?
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?&q=3Dspinoza1111+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. =A0

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.

On Dec 25, 3:33=A0am, Francis Glassborow
<francis.glassbo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Argonaut wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
> > <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claims
> >> that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
> >> searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
>
> >> It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> > Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>
> > Do you think anyone takes you seriously when you have made the same
> > empty threats over 600 times?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/groups/search?&q=3Dspinoza1111+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. =A0
>
> Actually it is worse than that. Richard Heathfield searched for
> spinoza1111 and that came up blank. So his assertion was entirely
> correct.

No, Heathfield lied.

(1) Type "risks archive" with or without quotes
(2) In the search box labeled "search Risks" type Nilges

The result will be 37 Nilges contributions.

Heathfield does not divulge how he searched. If you type "Nilges
risks" the second hit as of today includes the text "In Risks 11.55,
Ed Nilges comments that only a few programming languages allow
completely variable-length strings." in which I am "Ed" because at
Princeton in 1991 (the era of Risks 11) my ID was ednilges@pucc.

However, it is no defense that the literal meaning of his words could
somehow mean that he used some arbitrary search method that by
accident did not get any hits. This is because the ordinary and
accepted meaning of his language to "the man in the street" or a jury
of his peers is that he as a computer "expert" (self-proclaimed) made
a better than average effort. Since Google absent censorship (which
doesn't apply in the UK) works the same way all over the world,
Heathfield is clearly lying, and doing so with malicious intent.

Now, I realize here that almost ANYTHING will be said here by him or
his friends for the same reason that many people of his type lead
lives which by any objective measure are completely bizarre despite
(and indeed in consequence of) the fact that they consider themselves
respectable, middle class people, because Job One here for Richard
Heathfield is maintaining an illusion.

>OTOH Edward Nilges assertion:
>
> <quote>
> Richard Heathfield's post was a lie made with malicious intent to
> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
> <\quote>
>
> Is indeed libellous in that he accuses Richard not only of lying but
> doing so with malicious intent.

To defend oneself is not to have malicious intent. Read Shakespeare.
Malice as in characters like Iago starts from nothing. Characters who
defend themselves are in Shakespeare heroes, not villains.
>
> For some reason I mote and beam come to mind. Richard along with a
> number of other people that spinoza1111 insists on viewing as members of
> a dark conspiracy spends a good deal of time trying to help others.

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

>On Dec 25, 2:38�am, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>>
>> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claims
>> >that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
>> >searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
>>
>> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>>
>> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>
>The issue isn't whether I "follow through": 


Okay, since you avoided that question that confirms it:
Despite threatening, even promising, to sue people hundreds of times,
and it seems specifically Heathfield dozens at least, you have  never,
ever actually done so.

So really, who do you think you are kidding?

>as in the corporation or
>dysfunctional lower middle class family which prepares individuals for
>the corporation, ethical discussion consists of changing the subject
>to something more comfortable, and changing ethical canons to
>something that fit the intolerable situation in which the middle class
>family or corporate employee finds themselves. It is very disturbing
>to you, probably, that Richard Heathfield gets away with lying, so
>let's change the subject to whether and how I "follow through".

>But as it is, the first step in any legal process is settling without
>lawyers and out of court. My goal here is to get Richard Heathfield to
>withdraw his lie without using lawyers, then to use a lawyer to get
>him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
>necessary, to take him to court.

But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
that.

You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
never ever carried it out.

Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR of
posts in comp.risks, not realising that only the moderator posts
messages he has received as a digest. His statement was technically
true. You have no case.

Meanwhile you claim a pass for abusing Peter Seibel in the vilest
fashion due to your own lack of care in researching a claim. And you
have kept that thread alive, despite promising to withdraw, thus
exacerbating it. 

One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
retainer, and then you'll be toast.

On 2009-12-25, Argonaut <Argo@naut.com> wrote:
> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
> retainer, and then you'll be toast.

I have not actually talked to the lawyer I have on retainer about this.
Well, wait.  That's not true.  I have talked with him about it several
times, but not in any official capacity, rather, in the general way that
I update him on all hilarious Usenet kookery.

Long story short, I've been through this one before; it would be
a mug's game to try for a defamation case against someone who has such
absolute and complete non-credibility.  If Spinny could make it through
a week or so of posting without directly contradicting himself or posting
a conspiracy theory sufficiently ludicrous to get rejected by the Weekly
World News as "unrealistic", maybe there would be some point.  As is,
he is, like them, "purely for entertainment".

-s
-- 
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Dec 25, 2:42=A0pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2009-12-25, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
>
> > One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
> > retainer, and then you'll be toast.
>
> I have not actually talked to the lawyer I have on retainer about this.
> Well, wait. =A0That's not true. =A0I have talked with him about it severa=
l
> 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. =A0If Spinny could make it through

As I have said, "credibility" is not "not making errors". It is
whether you lie. You saw, I am convinced, that Richard was lying for
if he'd searched with minimal competence he would have found 37
comp.risks posts. Nonetheless you approved the post as well as the
post that unnecessarily involved Peter Seibel in this mess.

We can settle this matter out of a court of law and without lawyers,
but that requires a behavioral change and an apology from you.

> a week or so of posting without directly contradicting himself or posting

I contradict myself because I am large, and contain multitudes.
Whereas in saying that "these are the known errors" in "C: The
Complete Nonsense" and "there are more" you contradict yourself,
period.

> a conspiracy theory sufficiently ludicrous to get rejected by the Weekly
> World News as "unrealistic", maybe there would be some point. =A0As is,
> he is, like them, "purely for entertainment".
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. =A0Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@see=
bs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny picturesht=
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Dec 25, 2:17=A0pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 2:38=A0am, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
> >> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he claim=
s
> >> >that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks after
> >> >searching it: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.
>
> >> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> >> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>
> >The issue isn't whether I "follow through":
>
> Okay, since you avoided that question that confirms it:
> Despite threatening, even promising, to sue people hundreds of times,
> and it seems specifically Heathfield dozens at least, you have =A0never,
> ever actually done so.
>
> So really, who do you think you are kidding?
>
> >as in the corporation or
> >dysfunctional lower middle class family which prepares individuals for
> >the corporation, ethical discussion consists of changing the subject
> >to something more comfortable, and changing ethical canons to
> >something that fit the intolerable situation in which the middle class
> >family or corporate employee finds themselves. It is very disturbing
> >to you, probably, that Richard Heathfield gets away with lying, so
> >let's change the subject to whether and how I "follow through".
> >But as it is, the first step in any legal process is settling without
> >lawyers and out of court. My goal here is to get Richard Heathfield to
> >withdraw his lie without using lawyers, then to use a lawyer to get
> >him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
> >necessary, to take him to court.
>
> But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
> that.

How can you be so certain? All you know, in fact, is that today,
little corporate dweebs, as such, have no effective access to the
courts. But in fact, effective lawsuits are brought all the time which
change power relationships. For example, Israeli Foreign Minister
Tzipi Livni is unable to travel to Britain because an ordinary little
London firm sued for her arrest under international law. This firm's
day to day business is quite different: it is defending Moslem youth
against British police brutality, and helping Islamic people
immigrate. But it also brings "big" cases.

Sure, as little corporate dweebs per se, people don't sue, because
they can lose their jobs. However, those of us who've exited the
matrix know how to function outside the air supply.

I think (having done so on unrelated matters) that bringing a legal
process up is difficult and I believe that like abortion it should be
safe, legal, and rare. That's why I'm asking for a "settlement"
without using a lawyer: that's why I am asking Richard and Peter to
apologize for the comp.risks claim.

>
> You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
> never ever carried it out.
>
> Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR of
> posts in comp.risks, not realising that only the moderator posts
> messages he has received as a digest. His statement was technically
> true. You have no case.

It may have been designed to be technically true by someone who trusts
the boneheaded, junior college graduate stupidity of programmers.
Heathfield may have planned to make a claim using the words "seemed"
after discovering that I occur in comp.risks as a variant of the Sokal
hoax. Stupid and evil people often either pull such stunts, or re-
present their stupid errors as deliberate stunts after the fact,
because stupid and evil people don't realize that "errors" don't lose
you credibility: lying and dishonesty does.

But: Kenny and "Richard" have both pointed out that the thugs here act
as if a statement has only one possible interpretation...something
that's not true even in C as we know. They tacitly and without
argument select the interpretation most favorable to their case.

Here it's that Richard innocently only searched for Nilges as the
author of an entire comp.risks posting when comp.risks has been around
for a long time, where it is well-known even to newbies, and where
Richard claims expertise as an Internet user.

But a court of law would use a different interpretation. It is
incapable of deciding Richard's final intention, but the stunt has all
the appearances of a malicious falsehood and not an innocent mistake.

Richard and Seebach are trying to discredit me by representing me as
an isolated person without access to a moderated group, and they wish
to prove that Peter Neumann reacts to my comments on "risks to the
public" in the way they react to my comments on C. This is because
neither are competent in their positions; Richard is not a competent
programmer and Seebach is apparently a script kiddie who writes on
computer science with no academic training and a semiclerical job.
Unfortunately, Peter Neumann, who I have never met in person but with
whom I have spoken on the phone, examined submissions from me to
comp.risks and allowed these to go forward, based on a much larger
volume of input. Maliciously, they need to disprove this, and they
have lied to do so.


>
> Meanwhile you claim a pass for abusing Peter Seibel in the vilest
> fashion due to your own lack of care in researching a claim. And you
> have kept that thread alive, despite promising to withdraw, thus
> exacerbating it.

Trust me, when I was attacking Seibel thinking he was Seebach, I could
have been a lot more "vile". What was your verbal SAT? You seem to
lack some reading comprehension skills, because I said very nice
things about Seibel's books and focused on what was in actuality
Seebach's behavior.


>
> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
> retainer, and then you'll be toast.

Hey, maybe I already am in the sense that I have decided to leave the
programming field, owing to the shithead factor. But toast has rights.
Toast can work as an unpaid paralegal in a London law firm
specializing in reputation management.

You people think you can shit on people here until Kingdom Come for
the same reason Augusto Pinochet and Tzipi Livni thought they could go
to London to shop. You think things will just go on as before.

But, an experiment at MIT showed that even "intelligent" MIT graduate
students thought that if the water filling a bathtub with an open
drain was reduced the bathtub wouldn't overflow. They didn't realize
that in most cases, mathematically, it needs to be shut off. That's
because they didn't realize that the water going down the drain would
back up when it came to the first bottleneck in the plumbing, making
the net carrying capacity of the drain less than its "official" value.

This experiment was used to show how people in the West think that
they can continue to use credit cards and add to global warming, and
not expect sudden "shocks" that have already occured, such as Katrina
and the credit crisis.

Here, Richard Heathfield, assisted by Peter Seebach, have been daily
adding to the net malignity of this newsgroup and slowly angering a
larger and larger number of people who would like to use it for its
intended purpose. The "shock" may well be a court case.

"spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284c35@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

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

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

>On Dec 25, 2:17�pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111

>> >> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>>
>> >> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>>

>> >him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
>> >necessary, to take him to court.
>>
>> But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
>> that.
>
>How can you be so certain? 

Maybe you can fool yourself.
No one else.

>Sure, as little corporate dweebs per se, people don't sue, because
>they can lose their jobs. However, those of us who've exited the
>matrix know how to function outside the air supply.

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

>> You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
>> never ever carried it out.
>>
>> Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR of
>> posts in comp.risks, not realising that only the moderator posts
>> messages he has received as a digest. His statement was technically
>> true. You have no case.
>
>It may have been designed to be technically true by someone who trusts
>the boneheaded, junior college graduate stupidity of programmers.

If you actually believe that he did it deliberately, you're the
bonehead, since he would know you would squeal like a stuck pig, as
you have. He didn't look into the unusual way that comp.risks is
organized, an oversight and nothing more.


>But a court of law would use a different interpretation. 

It will never come to a court. So stop jerking off to the idea.

>> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
>> retainer, and then you'll be toast.
>
>Hey, maybe I already am in the sense that I have decided to leave the
>programming field, owing to the shithead factor. But toast has rights.
>Toast can work as an unpaid paralegal in a London law firm
>specializing in reputation management.

Yeah, sure, a law firm will let you use their resources and reputation
to prosecute your vendettas, for free. They'll be lining up for that
privilege. 

>You people think you can shit on people here until Kingdom Come for
>the same reason Augusto Pinochet and Tzipi Livni thought they could go
>to London to shop. You think things will just go on as before.

Because misattributing a Usenet post is the same as murdering
thousands of people. The analogy is clear.

On Dec 25, 6:14=A0pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:13:20 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 2:17=A0pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
> >> >> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> >> >> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>
> >> >him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
> >> >necessary, to take him to court.
>
> >> But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
> >> that.
>
> >How can you be so certain?
>
> Maybe you can fool yourself.
> No one else.
>
> >Sure, as little corporate dweebs per se, people don't sue, because
> >they can lose their jobs. However, those of us who've exited the
> >matrix know how to function outside the air supply.
>
> And yet -- you have not, and never will.

How do you know, Argonaut?
>
> >> You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
> >> never ever carried it out.
>
> >> Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR of
> >> posts in comp.risks, not realising that only the moderator posts
> >> messages he has received as a digest. His statement was technically
> >> true. You have no case.
>
> >It may have been designed to be technically true by someone who trusts
> >the boneheaded, junior college graduate stupidity of programmers.
>
> If you actually believe that he did it deliberately, you're the
> bonehead, since he would know you would squeal like a stuck pig, as

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

> you have. He didn't look into the unusual way that comp.risks is
> organized, an oversight and nothing more.

The problem is that he claims expertise in all sorts of low and
midlevel computer related tasks and is, I believe, a consultant on
these matters. It is quite simple to see that comp.risks is organized
differently (hint: look at the author). No, Heathfield lied with
malicious intent.

Furthermore, even if it was an oversight, it was the moderator's job
to stop the post and send Richard Heathfield a query about it. I
realize that the low standard of ethics and intelligence amongst most
"computer experts" makes them believe that they can define the
moderator's job in any way they like, especially if they volunteered
for it to pad a weak resume. But lawyers take the meaning of
"moderation" quite seriously.



>
> >But a court of law would use a different interpretation.
>
> It will never come to a court. So stop jerking off to the idea.

I don't jerk off to ideas. I jerk off to videos and pictures of girls.
You're jerking off here because you think this is some sort of game,
and it isn't.

>
> >> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
> >> retainer, and then you'll be toast.
>
> >Hey, maybe I already am in the sense that I have decided to leave the
> >programming field, owing to the shithead factor. But toast has rights.
> >Toast can work as an unpaid paralegal in a London law firm
> >specializing in reputation management.
>
> Yeah, sure, a law firm will let you use their resources and reputation
> to prosecute your vendettas, for free. They'll be lining up for that
> privilege.

Did I say for free? I said I'd work for them. Anyway, it's not your
business. British and American law is based on access to courts, and I
have nothing but contempt for corporate types who whisper amongst
themselves that they and people like them have no such access and
better not try. This is because they want to be authorities about lack
of authority, and tell others they have no power, just like them.

But at this time, I am trying to save myself, Richard and Seebach
money by proposing that Heathfield apologize for and admit to making a
malicious lie, and that Seebach apologize for his conduct as
moderator. Also, I want Seebach in the future to

(1) Exercise more diligence as moderator
(2) Stop calling people names as moderator


>
> >You people think you can shit on people here until Kingdom Come for
> >the same reason Augusto Pinochet and Tzipi Livni thought they could go
> >to London to shop. You think things will just go on as before.
>
> Because misattributing a Usenet post is the same as murdering
> thousands of people. The analogy is clear.

? Tzipi Livni hasn't murdered thousands of people, although she tried
to. Furthermore, if it's possible to bring such powerful people down
for what they've done, Heathfield should be a piece of cake, right?

Violating the law isn't measured by body counts. It's measured by mens
rea (the guilty mind that results from malicious intent) and the facts
(actus rea). Heathfield's mind is unknowable, but his malicious intent
is plain.

On Dec 25, 5:43=A0pm, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:c9e600=
54-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284c35@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.

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

>On Dec 25, 6:14�pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:13:20 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>>
>> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 25, 2:17�pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>> >> >> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>>
>> >> >> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>>
>> >> >him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
>> >> >necessary, to take him to court.
>>
>> >> But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
>> >> that.
>>
>> >How can you be so certain?
>>
>> Maybe you can fool yourself.
>> No one else.
>>
>> >Sure, as little corporate dweebs per se, people don't sue, because
>> >they can lose their jobs. However, those of us who've exited the
>> >matrix know how to function outside the air supply.
>>
>> And yet -- you have not, and never will.
>
>How do you know, Argonaut?
>>

Put up or shut up. 

>> >> You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
>> >> never ever carried it out.
>>
>> >> Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR of
>> >> posts in comp.risks, not realising that only the moderator posts
>> >> messages he has received as a digest. His statement was technically
>> >> true. You have no case.
>>
>> >It may have been designed to be technically true by someone who trusts
>> >the boneheaded, junior college graduate stupidity of programmers.
>>
>> If you actually believe that he did it deliberately, you're the
>> bonehead, since he would know you would squeal like a stuck pig, as
>
>Writing isn't "squealing like a stuck pig" except to Fascists,
>Argonaut.

Starting several threads whining about it is.

>> you have. He didn't look into the unusual way that comp.risks is
>> organized, an oversight and nothing more.
>
>The problem is that he claims expertise in all sorts of low and
>midlevel computer related tasks and is, I believe, a consultant on
>these matters. It is quite simple to see that comp.risks is organized
>differently (hint: look at the author). No, Heathfield lied with
>malicious intent.

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

>Furthermore, even if it was an oversight, it was the moderator's job
>to stop the post and send Richard Heathfield a query about it.
>realize that the low standard of ethics and intelligence amongst most
>"computer experts" makes them believe that they can define the
>moderator's job in any way they like, especially if they volunteered
>for it to pad a weak resume. But lawyers take the meaning of
>"moderation" quite seriously.

Lawyers again... really... 

Why not ask Santa Claus to put Heathfield's head on a stick under your
tree? More likely to happen.

>> >But a court of law would use a different interpretation.
>>
>> It will never come to a court. So stop jerking off to the idea.
>
>I don't jerk off to ideas. I jerk off to videos and pictures of girls.
>You're jerking off here because you think this is some sort of game,
>and it isn't.


Of course it's a game.  You're just trying to score points aginst your
enemies.  What real world impact do any of your campaigns have? None
at all. 

>> >> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
>> >> retainer, and then you'll be toast.
>>
>> >Hey, maybe I already am in the sense that I have decided to leave the
>> >programming field, owing to the shithead factor. But toast has rights.
>> >Toast can work as an unpaid paralegal in a London law firm
>> >specializing in reputation management.
>>
>> Yeah, sure, a law firm will let you use their resources and reputation
>> to prosecute your vendettas, for free. They'll be lining up for that
>> privilege.
>
>Did I say for free? I said I'd work for them.

And I say, no you won't. Never. 

> Anyway, it's not your
>business. British and American law is based on access to courts, and I
>have nothing but contempt for corporate types who whisper amongst
>themselves that they and people like them have no such access and
>better not try. This is because they want to be authorities about lack
>of authority, and tell others they have no power, just like them.

Oh, I believe that people can and do go to court. Just not you. And
the idea of a geriatric American finding work as an intern in a London
legal firm and use it to launch his revenge on the c.l.c cabal  is
even more ludicrous than your usual fantasies. 

On Dec 25, 8:53=A0pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:47:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
>
>
>
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 6:14=A0pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:13:20 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>
> >> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 25, 2:17=A0pm, Argonaut <A...@naut.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:12:24 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
> >> >> >> >It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> >> >> >> Have you ever, even once, followed through?
>
> >> >> >him to stop lying without using the court system and only then, if
> >> >> >necessary, to take him to court.
>
> >> >> But you won't. I know that, Heathfield knows that and even you know
> >> >> that.
>
> >> >How can you be so certain?
>
> >> Maybe you can fool yourself.
> >> No one else.
>
> >> >Sure, as little corporate dweebs per se, people don't sue, because
> >> >they can lose their jobs. However, those of us who've exited the
> >> >matrix know how to function outside the air supply.
>
> >> And yet -- you have not, and never will.
>
> >How do you know, Argonaut?
>
> Put up or shut up.

I prefer for the reasons stated until Heathfield recovers from his
Yuletide excesses and crawls back in here, and, in a sudden spirit of
Repentance, admits he was wrong and begs my pardon. As I've told you,
locus standi should be safe, legal and rare, but it's my
responsibility to settle man to man before engaging a solicitor to
take his house.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> You have been threatening people with libel suits for DECADES. And
> >> >> never ever carried it out.
>
> >> >> Anyway, As Heathfield explained, he searched for you as an AUTHOR o=
f
> >> >> 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 trust=
s
> >> >the boneheaded, junior college graduate stupidity of programmers.
>
> >> If you actually believe that he did it deliberately, you're the
> >> bonehead, since he would know you would squeal like a stuck pig, as
>
> >Writing isn't "squealing like a stuck pig" except to Fascists,
> >Argonaut.
>
> Starting several threads whining about it is.
>
> >> you have. He didn't look into the unusual way that comp.risks is
> >> organized, an oversight and nothing more.
>
> >The problem is that he claims expertise in all sorts of low and
> >midlevel computer related tasks and is, I believe, a consultant on
> >these matters. It is quite simple to see that comp.risks is organized
> >differently (hint: look at the author). No, Heathfield lied with
> >malicious intent.
>
> Okay, you've proved you're an idiot.
>
> >Furthermore, even if it was an oversight, it was the moderator's job
> >to stop the post and send Richard Heathfield a query about it.
> >realize that the low standard of ethics and intelligence amongst most
> >"computer experts" makes them believe that they can define the
> >moderator's job in any way they like, especially if they volunteered
> >for it to pad a weak resume. But lawyers take the meaning of
> >"moderation" quite seriously.
>
> Lawyers again... really...
>
> Why not ask Santa Claus to put Heathfield's head on a stick under your
> tree? More likely to happen.

Your view is a part of social control. Elites want in fact to destroy
locus standi, so they encourage little shits to say that lawyers are
too expensive for the likes of 'umble folk, beggin' yore pardon,
m'lud.

Since elites can't hire enough cops to control people, people have to
internalize social control. It used to be through rigid character
armor of the sort inculcated in basic training, but today it's "cool"
and a sort of hopeless knowingness which declares certain things
impossible.

>
> >> >But a court of law would use a different interpretation.
>
> >> It will never come to a court. So stop jerking off to the idea.
>
> >I don't jerk off to ideas. I jerk off to videos and pictures of girls.
> >You're jerking off here because you think this is some sort of game,
> >and it isn't.
>
> Of course it's a game. =A0You're just trying to score points aginst your
> enemies. =A0What real world impact do any of your campaigns have? None
> at all.

That's not true. These posts get an excellent response in terms of
sheer volume, and a significant number of people like them, given the
low level of intellect attracted to this facility.
>
> >> >> One day perhaps you'll piss off someone who does have lawyer on
> >> >> retainer, and then you'll be toast.
>
> >> >Hey, maybe I already am in the sense that I have decided to leave the
> >> >programming field, owing to the shithead factor. But toast has rights=
..
> >> >Toast can work as an unpaid paralegal in a London law firm
> >> >specializing in reputation management.
>
> >> Yeah, sure, a law firm will let you use their resources and reputation
> >> to prosecute your vendettas, for free. They'll be lining up for that
> >> privilege.
>
> >Did I say for free? I said I'd work for them.
>
> And I say, no you won't. Never.

How do you know? Anyway, perhaps something else will transpire. For
example, a class action against the large number of people Heathfield
has harmed.
>
> > Anyway, it's not your
> >business. British and American law is based on access to courts, and I
> >have nothing but contempt for corporate types who whisper amongst
> >themselves that they and people like them have no such access and
> >better not try. This is because they want to be authorities about lack
> >of authority, and tell others they have no power, just like them.
>
> Oh, I believe that people can and do go to court. Just not you. And
> the idea of a geriatric American finding work as an intern in a London
> legal firm and use it to launch his revenge on the c.l.c cabal =A0is
> 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.

In 
<c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284c35@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, 
spinoza1111 wrote:

> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
> the Matter of Herb Schildt":
> 
> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,

That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In 
*this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.

> 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:

<irrelevant list snipped>

 
> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
> me, or a response to my posts.

So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those 
separate original posts where the message text (not the headers, 
unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers 
without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster 
as spinoza1111? I think not.

> Each post was diligently reviewed by
> Peter G. Neumann or one of his designates.

Irrelevant, since none of them identified spinoza1111@yahoo.com as the 
author of the article within the message text.

> 
> Richard Heathfield's post was a lie made with malicious intent to
> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.

Clearly wrong.

<snip>
 
> Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he
> claims that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks
> after searching it:

Wrong. Again. There are a great many posts in comp.risks, and I have 
never claimed otherwise. My claim is that I searched the Google 
Groups archives for articles by spinoza1111 in comp.risks, and found 
none. That claim is true.

> but, the simplest possible search provides 37
> hits.

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

spinoza1111@yahoo.com
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.

> 
> It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.

What is this? The fifth lawsuit threat? The ninth? The nineteenth? I 
lost track a long time ago.

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. 
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.

> Like most criminals, Heathfield believes that one loses
> "credibility" when one makes a mistake: but a raw large count of
> errors has to be divided by contribution volume, since creative
> people make mistakes. "Credibility" isn't about making "errors".

"Credibility" is a measure of the extent to which other people believe 
you, which in turn is based on your track record not only of honesty 
but also of cluefulness. That is why I have no concerns about my own 
credibility, and no confidence in yours.

> It's about basic honesty, and Heathfield's dishonesty is here most
> clearly on display.

You have yet to demonstrate that claim - which /is/ defamatory, but 
don't worry; I have no concerns about anything you say having the 
slightest effect on my reputation.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> In 
> <c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284c35@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, 
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
>> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
>> the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>> 
>> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
>> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
>
> That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In 
> *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.

Google Groups does mangle addresses that way, in an attempt
(misguided IMHO) to prevent harvesting by spammers.  There's not much
that Google Groups users can do to avoid it, other than switching
to a real news server.

[...]

>> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
>> me, or a response to my posts.
>
> So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those 
> separate original posts where the message text (not the headers, 
> unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers 
> without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster 
> as spinoza1111? I think not.

Richard, I'm not quite sure what point you're making.  In spite of the
way Google Groups mangles addresses, the unmangled address is still
visible for searching.

The search I just performed can be reduced to the following URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=spinoza1111&as_ugroup=comp.risks

This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
that include postings by "spinoza1111@yahoo.com".  The fact that
"spinoza1111@yahoo.com" is mangled to "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" when
the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.

One such posting has:
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.1041224103.risko@chiron.csl.sri.com>

My guess, as I wrote before, is that you attempted to search for
articles in comp.risks whose author is "spinoza1111".  There are
no such articles, since each posted article is a multi-part digest
whose author is "RISKS List Owner".  The Google Groups Advanced
search doesn't recognize the headers of the individual parts as
headers; it treats them as part of the body of the full article.

[...]

>> but, the simplest possible search provides 37
>> hits.
>
> Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They 
> were, in turn:
>
> spinoza1111@yahoo.com
> 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 "spinoza1111@yahoo.com" in the Author box, or in one of
the "Find web pages that have..." boxes at the top of the search form?

[...]

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

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Keith Thompson wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>> In 
>> <c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284c35@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, 
>> spinoza1111 wrote:
>>> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
>>> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
>>> the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>>>
>>> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
>>> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
>> That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In 
>> *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.
> 
> Google Groups does mangle addresses that way, in an attempt
> (misguided IMHO) to prevent harvesting by spammers.  There's not much
> that Google Groups users can do to avoid it, other than switching
> to a real news server.

That would be sufficient, yes. The mangling is a known feature of Google 
Groups, so there is little, if any, excuse for using Google Groups when 
that known feature will change the meaning of the message.

> 
> [...]
> 
>>> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
>>> me, or a response to my posts.
>> So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those 
>> separate original posts where the message text (not the headers, 
>> unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers 
>> without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster 
>> 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 "spinoza1111@yahoo.com".

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


   The fact that
> "spinoza1111@yahoo.com" is mangled to "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" when
> the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.
> 
> One such posting has:
> Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.1041224103.risko@chiron.csl.sri.com>
> 
> 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.

<snip>

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

Right.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:19:45 UTC, superpollo <utente@esempio.net> 
wrote:

> spinoza1111 ha scritto:
> 
> > defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
> 
> are you a judge?

Don't ask a twit! spinozza is known as a twit who dooes nothing know 
about C anyway.

-- 
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2R Deutsch ist da!

On Dec 27, 5:48=A0pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

Gee, you're still an asshole.

> In
> <c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> > this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
> > the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>
> > "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> > self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
>
> That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
> *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.

What an asshole.

>
> > but this does seem to be one such
> > occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never
> > posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives
> > at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it
> > seems that not a single article byspinoza1111has ever been
> > approved. It seems to be a very successful policy."
>
> > However, a search of the comp.risks archive at
> >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risksfor "Nilges" produces this:
>
> <irrelevant list snipped>
>
> > Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
> > me, or a response to my posts.
>
> So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
> separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
> unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
> without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
> asspinoza1111? I think not.

Irrevelant. You intended to maliciously lie about my credibility by
"proving" that I, as Edward Nilges or spinoza1111, who you know to be
the same person, has never been permitted to post to comp.risks.

Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
court.


>
> > Each post was diligently reviewed by
> > Peter G. Neumann or one of his designates.
>
> Irrelevant, since none of them identified spinoza1...@yahoo.com as the
> author of the article within the message text.

Your intent was to cause malicious damage to a reputation. I'm going
to contact a solicitor this week unless you post an apology and a
retraction.

>
>
>
> > Richard Heathfield's post was a lie made with malicious intent to
> > defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>
> Clearly wrong.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he
> > claims that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks
> > after searching it:
>
> Wrong. Again. There are a great many posts in comp.risks, and I have
> never claimed otherwise. My claim is that I searched the Google
> Groups archives for articles byspinoza1111in comp.risks, and found
> none. That claim is true.

It was made as part of a clear pattern of behavior, for which we have
full documentation, in which you maliciously try to damage
reputations.

>
> > but, the simplest possible search provides 37
> > hits.
>
> Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
> were, in turn:
>
> spinoza1...@yahoo.comspinoza1111
> spinoza
>
> As you can see, I started off with a highly specific search, and
> increasingly slackened it in an attempt to get at least one hit. But
> hits came there none.

You KNEW that my name is Nilges, and you KNEW that comp.risks digests
several posts in each issue. You intended a stupid lie and are a
stupid, malicious and evil man.
>
>
>
> > It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.
>
> What is this? The fifth lawsuit threat? The ninth? The nineteenth? I
> lost track a long time ago.

Bush is laughing at Dan Rather. Laugh away, fuckhead. The law takes
time.

>
> If you are silly enough to proceed with it, be aware that I am
> perfectly prepared to prove the truth of my statement as written.

But not as intended.

> Since your claim seems to be that it is defamatory /because/ it's a
> lie, proving the statement to be true will obviously defeat the
> claim. That is all I have to say on the matter.

Only to a nasty little clerk who's probably been fired from several
low level jobs in banks and insurance companies.
>
> > Like most criminals, Heathfield believes that one loses
> > "credibility" when one makes a mistake: but a raw large count of
> > errors has to be divided by contribution volume, since creative
> > people make mistakes. "Credibility" isn't about making "errors".
>
> "Credibility" is a measure of the extent to which other people believe
> you, which in turn is based on your track record not only of honesty
> but also of cluefulness. That is why I have no concerns about my own
> credibility, and no confidence in yours.

No, you're wrong. Credibility is about honesty, period, and you have
none.

>
> > It's about basic honesty, and Heathfield's dishonesty is here most
> > clearly on display.
>
> You have yet to demonstrate that claim - which /is/ defamatory, but
> don't worry; I have no concerns about anything you say having the
> slightest effect on my reputation.

It's not defamatory because it's the truth, asswipe.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within

On Dec 27, 6:45=A0pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> > In
> > <c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> >spinoza1111wrote:
> >> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> >> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
> >> the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>
> >> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> >> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
>
> > 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. =A0There's not much
> that Google Groups users can do to avoid it, other than switching
> to a real news server.
>
> [...]
>
> >> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
> >> me, or a response to my posts.
>
> > So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
> > separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
> > unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
> > without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
> > asspinoza1111? I think not.
>
> Richard, I'm not quite sure what point you're making. =A0In 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://gr=
oups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=3Dspinoza1111&as_ugroup=3Dcom...
>
> This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
> that include postings by "spinoza1...@yahoo.com". =A0The fact that
> "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" is mangled to "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" 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: <CMM.0.90.4.1041224103.risko@chiron.csl.sri.com>
>
> My guess, as I wrote before, is that you attempted to search for
> articles in comp.risks whose author is "spinoza1111". =A0There are
> no such articles, since each posted article is a multi-part digest
> whose author is "RISKS List Owner". =A0The Google Groups Advanced
> search doesn't recognize the headers of the individual parts as
> headers; it treats them as part of the body of the full article.
>
> [...]
>
> >> but, the simplest possible search provides 37
> >> hits.
>
> > Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
> > were, in turn:
>
> > spinoza1...@yahoo.com
> >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 "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" 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
spinoza1111@yahoo.com.
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org =A0<http://www.ghoti.net/~=
kst>
> Nokia
> "We must do something. =A0This is something. =A0Therefore, we must do thi=
s."
> =A0 =A0 -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On Dec 27, 8:29=A0pm, "Herbert Rosenau" <os2...@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:19:45 UTC, superpollo <ute...@esempio.net>
> wrote:
>
> >spinoza1111ha scritto:
>
> > > defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>
> > are you a judge?
>
> Don't ask a twit! spinozza is known as a twit who dooes nothing know
> about C anyway.

Rosenau posts from Nazi camp. Like quertyuiop at www.lamma.com.HK, he
bases his hatred strictly on the sort of malicious, unjustified and
unfair things that are said by Heathfield and the drunks on Lamma
Island.
>
> --
> Tschau/Bye
> Herbert
>
> Visithttp://www.ecomstation.dethe home of german eComStation
> eComStation 1.2R Deutsch ist da!

On Dec 27, 7:13=A0pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> >> In
> >> <c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> >>spinoza1111wrote:
> >>> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> >>> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In
> >>> the Matter of Herb Schildt":
>
> >>> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> >>> self-styled spinoza1...@yahoo.com,
> >> 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. =A0There'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. =A0In spite of th=
e
> > 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=3Dspinoza1111&as_ugroup=3Dco=
m...
>
> > This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
> > that include postings by "spinoza1...@yahoo.com".
>
> You were more fortunate than me, then, since I performed three separate
> searches, none of which returned any hits.
>
> =A0 =A0The fact that
>
> > "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" is mangled to "spinoza1...@yahoo.com" when
> > the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.
>
> > One such posting has:
> > Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.1041224103.ri...@chiron.csl.sri.com>
>
> > 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". =A0The Google Groups Advanced
> > search doesn't recognize the headers of the individual parts as
> > headers; it treats them as part of the body of the full article.
>
> Well, that certainly changes things - I must admit I never thought I'd
> have to shave /myself/ with Hanlon's Razor, but it seems that this has
> become one such occasion.

Richard, if you want to post a retraction and avoid a lawsuit, just
copy the following into a reply and write your name under it

"I apologize for my false claim that Edward 'spinoza1111' Nilges has
never been permitted to post to the moderated group comp.risks. Mr.
Nilges has posted original content to this group which was reviewed
and approved by its moderator."

>
> <snip>
>
> > Of course, nobody should mistake this for a defense of Spinny's
> > obsessive claim of deliberate deceipt.
>
> Right.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
>court.
>
>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.

>It's not defamatory because it's the truth, asswipe.

Ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahahahahahahahahaha


Well, I'll check back in a week, 4th Jan 2010,  and see who has lived
up to his word (as "sworn to God"), and who is the blowhard asswipe.

spinoza1111 wrote:
<nonsense snipped>

> 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 can think of a much easier way to avoid a lawsuit, which is simply to 
do nothing.

<nonsense snipped>

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

On Dec 28, 3:20=A0am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> spinoza1111wrote:
>
> <nonsense snipped>
>
> > 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 can think of a much easier way to avoid a lawsuit, which is simply to
> do nothing.

You've worked in a series of "banks and insurance companies" in what
TS Eliot called the twittering world. Your work hasn't meant anything
and has destroyed your spirit, so of course you believe that people
are like you: impotent. However, your malicious lie has stirred up a
hornet's nest, my friend.

I shall contact Clive Feather's friend Geoffrey Robertson for a
reference to a solicitor, which will have the side-effect of putting
the latter on notice as to how his friend or acquaintance participates
in cybernetic mob action. I have occasionally corresponded with
Robertson in the past commencing with the fact that he liked a review
of his book "Crimes Against Humanity" I'd written in 1999. He may find
it rather disturbing that his authority was invoked by Clive Feather
without his permission, before he's had a chance to investigate the
matter.



>
> <nonsense snipped>
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within

In comp.programming spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Gee, you're still an asshole.
> [...]
> What an asshole.
> [...]
> fuckhead
> [...]
> asswipe

Take this unprofessional filth offline please.

spinoza1111 wrote:

> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In the
> Matter of Herb Schildt":
<snip nonsense>

I wonder if you will ever amount to anything productive instead of continuously 
wasting your time polluting a series of newsgroups with your trolling and series of 
absurd personal attacks.


Rui Maciel

Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
>> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In the
>> Matter of Herb Schildt":
> <snip nonsense>
>
> I wonder if you will ever amount to anything productive instead of
> continuously wasting your time polluting a series of newsgroups with
> your trolling and series of absurd personal attacks.

Many years of posts from "spinoza1111" strongly imply that the answer
is no, and that complaining to him about it is a waste of time.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

In article <4b4100ac$0$7434$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
Rui Maciel  <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
(His usual.  Doesn't really matter.  It's all the same)

>I wonder if you will ever amount to anything productive instead of
>continuously wasting your time polluting a series of newsgroups with
>your trolling and series of absurd personal attacks.
>
>
>Rui Maciel

Appropriate change made.  HTH.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 03:06:08 +0800, Colonel Harlan Sanders
<Harlan@kfc.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
><spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
>>court.
>>
>>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.
>
>>It's not defamatory because it's the truth, asswipe.
>
>Ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahahahahahahahahaha
>
>
>Well, I'll check back in a week, 4th Jan 2010,  and see who has lived
>up to his word (as "sworn to God"), and who is the blowhard asswipe.

Here we are, a week later.
Have there been any developments in this "case"? Heathfield hasn't
issued the demanded retraction that I can see.

Of course, legal proceedings may have started and the participants are
wisely not mentioning it.

But I will venture to assert that actually nothing has  happened on
that front (and never will).

Conclusion: Edward Nilges, aka Spinoza1111, has never and will never
carry through his promised, vowed "to God" , threats of litigation.

To make this post and thread easier to locate in future Google
searches, for Nilges will certainly keep making these threats, a
summing up in a few  words for the search engines:

Edward Nilges never carries through his threats of libel.
Spinoza1111 + litigation + libel = never.
 
It would have been so entertaining to see Nilges make a complete fool
out of himself in court, and if he conducted himself there as he does
here, left to rot for a few weeks in a cell for contempt. But we must
be content with laughing at his antics  here.

And Nilges, I won't post on this issue any more,  but you can threaten
me with libel/ass kicking, etc., etc. if it makes you feel more manly.
Your credibility will remain at zero. 

On 2010-01-04, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Harlan@kfc.com> wrote:
> Conclusion: Edward Nilges, aka Spinoza1111, has never and will never
> carry through his promised, vowed "to God" , threats of litigation.

I think the issue is that, since he posted, he has come across texts
suggesting that God may have created a universe which contains the C
programming language, and is therefore presumptively incompetent to
receive oaths.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

In <90k2k59kj6sca6sc43s2lq4uc65tk0nklp@4ax.com>, Colonel Harlan 
Sanders wrote:

Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he 
hadn't changed the subject line. It is almost always the case that 
threads which attack people even in the subject line are indicators 
that the attacker is a bozo, and so it's best to avoid such personal 
subject lines.


> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 03:06:08 +0800, Colonel Harlan Sanders
> <Harlan@kfc.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>><spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
>>>court.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>>It's not defamatory because it's the truth, asswipe.
>>
>>Ha ha ha ha ha haha ha hahahahahahahahahaha
>>
>>
>>Well, I'll check back in a week, 4th Jan 2010,  and see who has
>>lived up to his word (as "sworn to God"), and who is the blowhard
>>asswipe.
> 
> Here we are, a week later.
> Have there been any developments in this "case"? Heathfield hasn't
> issued the demanded retraction that I can see.

Obviously not, since there's nothing to retract. I have already said 
all I want to say on the matter.

> Of course, legal proceedings may have started and the participants
> are wisely not mentioning it.

Despite many threats of libel from Mr Nilges and/or from 
spinoza1111@yahoo.com, no solicitor or other legal beagle has 
contacted me over any libel proceedings whatsoever from anyone, ever, 
and that includes this week.

> But I will venture to assert that actually nothing has  happened on
> that front (and never will).

Put it this way - I'm not holding my breath.

> Conclusion: Edward Nilges, aka Spinoza1111, has never and will never
> carry through his promised, vowed "to God" , threats of litigation.

Well, with every threat that he doesn't carry out, his credibility 
diminishes - and he has made a great many threats.

<snip>

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

On 2010-01-04, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Despite many threats of libel from Mr Nilges and/or from 
> spinoza1111@yahoo.com, no solicitor or other legal beagle has 
> contacted me over any libel proceedings whatsoever from anyone, ever, 
> and that includes this week.

I actually once DID get a threat from a lawyer!

It was in reference to this article:

http://www.seebs.net/log/articles/242/predatory-lending-if-you-thought-your-life-was-bad

The people whom I named as having participated in stealing $100,000 from
a brain-damaged man sent dire threatening letters, as a result of which
we were obliged to make two factual corrections in the document.

Interestingly, they were not satisfied by these changes, but no litigation
ever ensued.

> Well, with every threat that he doesn't carry out, his credibility 
> diminishes - and he has made a great many threats.

By the time I saw a threat from him, his credibility was already pretty
much functionally at zero.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:12:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

>In <90k2k59kj6sca6sc43s2lq4uc65tk0nklp@4ax.com>, Colonel Harlan 
>Sanders wrote:
>
>Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he 
>hadn't changed the subject line. It is almost always the case that 
>threads which attack people even in the subject line are indicators 
>that the attacker is a bozo, and so it's best to avoid such personal 
>subject lines.

Most newsreaders, and Google, will show it as a continuation of the
same thread from the References header.

Nilges' subject line was "Richard Heathfield's lie", I didn't want to
endorse that and thought if I was gloing to change the subject, I
might as well go all the way. That makes me a bozo?  If I was taking
the high road I wouldn't have posted anything, so perhaps that's
justified. 

Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:12:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In <90k2k59kj6sca6sc43s2lq4uc65tk0nklp@4ax.com>, Colonel Harlan 
>> Sanders wrote:
>>
>> Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he 
>> hadn't changed the subject line. It is almost always the case that 
>> threads which attack people even in the subject line are indicators 
>> that the attacker is a bozo, and so it's best to avoid such personal 
>> subject lines.
> 
> Most newsreaders, and Google, will show it as a continuation of the
> same thread from the References header.
> 
> Nilges' subject line was "Richard Heathfield's lie", I didn't want to
> endorse that and thought if I was gloing to change the subject, I
> might as well go all the way. That makes me a bozo?

Not necessarily, no, but it isn't a good sign. Sorry and all that. There 
is almost always a better way to word such things. For example, instead 
of "Richard Heathfield's lie", spinoza1111@yahoo.com could have used 
something like "Correction sought regarding claim about my comp.risks 
articles". And instead of changing it to "Edward Nilges's lie", you 
could either have left it alone (doing so does *not* endorse it in any 
way), or perhaps changed it to something like "Usenet libel threat 
deadline expires without incident".

Obviously it's up to you - but those who care about their online 
reputations should be far more worried about what they themselves say 
than about how others describe them.

 > If I was taking
> the high road I wouldn't have posted anything, so perhaps that's
> justified. 

I think you would be less open to such descriptions if you built up a 
solid track record of discussing C programming. I could be wrong, but I 
seem to recall that your principal focus is on rebutting personal 
attacks from (mostly) trolls. Whilst that's all very well, this 
newsgroup is actually supposed to be about C programming. (To some 
extent I am guilty of the same thing - I seem to be posting less and 
less about C nowadays, something I will try to fix.)

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Colonel Harlan Sanders  <Harlan@kfc.com> writes:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:12:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>>Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he 
>>hadn't changed the subject line.
[...]
> Most newsreaders, and Google, will show it as a continuation of the
> same thread from the References header.
[...]

Yes, but that's helpful only if previous articles in the thread
are visible.

My newsreader, by default, shows me only articles that I haven't
already read.  Since I had already read (or discarded) all the
previous articles in this thread, all I saw was the current subject
line as if it were the beginning of a new thread.  When I read the
article, I can see that it's a followup, and I can fairly easily
jump to the parent article, but from the group overview it looks
like a new thread:

[  32: Ben Bacarisse       ]   2 Re: Comparision of C Sharp and C performance
 <  12: Ben Bacarisse       >   1 
[  51: Colonel Harlan Sande]   5 Edward Nilges' lie
 [  67: Richard Heathfield  ]   3 
  [  30: Seebs               ]   1 
  [  21: Colonel Harlan Sande]   1 
 [  14: Seebs               ]   1 
[  13: James               ]   1 Re: Binary search trees (AVL trees)

(Of course, a better solution would have been to stop replying in this
thread, but I suppose that ship has sailed.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:

>.... (To some 
>extent I am guilty of the same thing - I seem to be posting less and 
>less about C nowadays, something I will try to fix.)

Thank you.

-- 
Chris.

Colonel Harlan Sanders a �crit :
[snip off topic polemic]

Look, here is a C group.

You do not like somebody?

Use private email, blog, whatever.

You do not like spinoza111?

DO NOT ANSWER.

Let's discuss about C  ok?

On Jan 4, 11:07=A0am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:

> Use private email, blog, whatever.
> You do not like spinoza111?
> DO NOT ANSWER.
> Let's discuss about C =A0ok?

Amen.  (Or "This", as the young people say).

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:07:50 +0100, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net>
wrote:

>Colonel Harlan Sanders a �crit :
>[snip off topic polemic]
>Look, here is a C group.
>You do not like somebody?
>Use private email, blog, whatever.
>You do not like spinoza111?
>DO NOT ANSWER.
>Let's discuss about C  ok?

I look forward to seeing you point this out to Mr Nilges next time he
steps off the path. Which he does in about 80% of his posts, so you'll
be busy.

But telling someone to shut up in a newsgroup usually has the opposite
effect, as this demonstrates.   

On Dec 24 2009, 7:26=A0pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is but one example of Heathfield's conduct. Many people here are
> tired of him.

Many people are tired of you, too. They won't sue just because you're
guilty of stupidity. Although, they probably should.

In article <hhsi65$tv$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
jacob navia  <jacob@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>Colonel Harlan Sanders a �crit :
>[snip off topic polemic]
>
>Look, here is a C group.
>
>You do not like somebody?
>
>Use private email, blog, whatever.
>
>You do not like spinoza111?
>
>DO NOT ANSWER.
>
>Let's discuss about C  ok?

As I've demonstrate many times, other than stupid language lawyering (*),
it is simply not possible to "discuss C" here, without being "off-topic"
by most accepted definitions of that term.

Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
of the group to that of interpersonal BS.  We have merely followed their
lead.

(*) Which, although fascinating to some, it is of little interest to 95%
of the population.

On Jan 4, 3:27=A0pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

> Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
> of the group to that of interpersonal BS. =A0We have merely followed thei=
r
> lead.

Have you tried thinking for yourself?  It's not as hard as its made
out to be.

In article <9796eb84-65bb-42e4-b403-0af23f9d946d@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
gwowen  <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 3:27�pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>> Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
>> of the group to that of interpersonal BS. �We have merely followed their
>> lead.
>
>Have you tried thinking for yourself?  It's not as hard as its made
>out to be.

That's rich.  Who do you think it is, in this group, who thinks for
themselves?  Is it the Establishment?  No, of course, it never is.  It
is the anti-Establishment, as it always is.

Colonel Harlan Sanders  <Harlan@kfc.com> writes:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:07:50 +0100, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net>
> wrote:
>>Colonel Harlan Sanders a écrit :
>>[snip off topic polemic]
>>Look, here is a C group.
>>You do not like somebody?
>>Use private email, blog, whatever.
>>You do not like spinoza111?
>>DO NOT ANSWER.
>>Let's discuss about C  ok?
>
> I look forward to seeing you point this out to Mr Nilges next time he
> steps off the path. Which he does in about 80% of his posts, so you'll
> be busy.
[...]

I look forward to someone's response to Nilges yielding a better
result than silence would have.

Repeated requests directed to Mr. Nilges have been ignored.
I encourage you to demonstrate that you are more reasonable than
he is.

If someone throws rocks at a hornet's nest near my house, I don't
waste my time complaining to the hornets.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:22:33 -0800, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:

>Repeated requests directed to Mr. Nilges have been ignored.
>I encourage you to demonstrate that you are more reasonable than
>he is.

There have been more posts telling me not to post than I've made...
but at least you're less hectoring than Mr Navia. 

It was always my intent to make one post on this little contretemps
and then back off. I  will not be throwing any more rocks at the
hornet. But he will always find or manufacture some issue to buzz
about.

In article <lnwrzxzvp2.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson  <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
....
>If someone throws rocks at a hornet's nest near my house, I don't
>waste my time complaining to the hornets.

The regs are hornets.  Indeed.  Well put.

I suppose sensible people would just let them be.  Myself, I prefer to
arm myself with the appropriate chemicals and try to get rid of them.

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

> In article <9796eb84-65bb-42e4-b403-0af23f9d946d@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> gwowen  <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jan 4, 3:27 pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>>
>>> Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
>>> of the group to that of interpersonal BS.  We have merely followed their
>>> lead.
>>
>>Have you tried thinking for yourself?  It's not as hard as its made
>>out to be.
>
> That's rich.  Who do you think it is, in this group, who thinks for
> themselves?  Is it the Establishment?  No, of course, it never is.  It
> is the anti-Establishment, as it always is.

OK Kenny, I've given you a couple of weeks, and your C input has been
NULL.  Join the other bozo's in the kill file.

For those who wonder why I "announce" this, it's very simple.  I really
will never read anything you say ever again.  If at some stage in the
future you name me in one of these obscure quasi-paranoid allusions I
will not be defending myself because I will not have read it.  This acts
as a convenient public record of that.
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

On 2010-01-04, Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> For those who wonder why I "announce" this, it's very simple.  I really
> will never read anything you say ever again.  If at some stage in the
> future you name me in one of these obscure quasi-paranoid allusions I
> will not be defending myself because I will not have read it.  This acts
> as a convenient public record of that.

Good point.

FWIW, I killfiled him ages ago.  People who pick a single model of human
motivation and insist that everyone is actually living by it all the time
no matter what are always pointless, regardless of which model they picked.
The amusing part is that he apparently thinks that you can be thinking for
yourself by adopting a policy of uncritical and unthinking rejection of
everything a particular set of people says to replace uncritical and
unthinking acceptance of what they say.  This is one of the cases where the
opposite of stupid is still stupid.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:01:24 -0800, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:

> Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> > spinoza1111 wrote:
> >> On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> >> this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In the
> >> Matter of Herb Schildt":
> > <snip nonsense>
> >
> > I wonder if you will ever amount to anything productive instead of
> > continuously wasting your time polluting a series of newsgroups with
> > your trolling and series of absurd personal attacks.
> 
> Many years of posts from "spinoza1111" strongly imply that the answer
> is no, and that complaining to him about it is a waste of time.

As is, apparently, attempting to converse with him.  Unfortunately,
once you KF spinoza1111 and everyone who can't resist him, there's not
much to see here, or in any of the C groups, including the moderated
one.  It would appear his mission is accomplished, which I'm sure he
enjoys immensely.  

Bravo.  

Kris <me@invalid.invalid> writes:
<snip>
> As is, apparently, attempting to converse with him.  Unfortunately,
> once you KF spinoza1111 and everyone who can't resist him, there's not
> much to see here, or in any of the C groups, including the moderated
> one.  It would appear his mission is accomplished, which I'm sure he
> enjoys immensely.  

The trick is to score down all threads and sub-threads headed by a
message from the poster that you think is being disruptive.  That way
you don't have to kill all posters simply because they got sucked into
replying (as I've been).

GNUS can do it, but it may be hard (or impossible) in other
newsreaders.

-- 
Ben.

In article <871vi53f0l.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>,
Nick  <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> drooled:
....
>For those who wonder why I "announce" this, it's very simple.  I really
>will never read anything you say ever again.  If at some stage in the
>future you name me in one of these obscure quasi-paranoid allusions I
>will not be defending myself because I will not have read it.  This acts
>as a convenient public record of that.

Whatever floats your boat...

On Jan 4, 12:51=A0pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:12:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> > <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> In <90k2k59kj6sca6sc43s2lq4uc65tk0n...@4ax.com>, Colonel Harlan
> >> Sanders wrote:
>
> >> Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he
> >> hadn't changed the subject line. It is almost always the case that
> >> threads which attack people even in the subject line are indicators
> >> that the attacker is a bozo, and so it's best to avoid such personal
> >> subject lines.
>
> > Most newsreaders, and Google, will show it as a continuation of the
> > same thread from the References header.
>
> >Nilges' subject line was "Richard Heathfield's lie", I didn't want to
> > endorse that and thought if I was gloing to change the subject, I
> > might as well go all the way. That makes me a bozo?
>
> Not necessarily, no, but it isn't a good sign. Sorry and all that. There
> is almost always a better way to word such things. For example, instead
> of "Richard Heathfield's lie", spinoza1...@yahoo.com could have used
> something like "Correction sought regarding claim about my comp.risks
> articles". And instead of changing it to "EdwardNilges'slie", you
> could either have left it alone (doing so does *not* endorse it in any
> way), or perhaps changed it to something like "Usenet libel threat
> deadline expires without incident".

Richard, you deliberately used the wrong search technique to "confirm"
that I've not been accepted for the comp.risks group, and this was a
lie. You knew that it consists of digests of posts and you concealed
this fact.

You're the liar, and no, this issue isn't going away. I have contacted
solicitors in this matter. Do not confuse you impotence with any you
fancy in me.

>
> Obviously it's up to you - but those who care about their online
> reputations should be far more worried about what they themselves say
> than about how others describe them.
>
> =A0> If I was taking
>
> > the high road I wouldn't have posted anything, so perhaps that's
> > justified.
>
> I think you would be less open to such descriptions if you built up a
> solid track record of discussing C programming. I could be wrong, but I

I have. I've created interesting threads on C, most recently a
demonstration that C Sharp is only ten percent slower which refuted
the claim that it is interpreted. I've documented a number of problems
in C, and I've used this language as a programmer.

You're a liar, and a thug, and the sort of person who I saw take
programming jobs precisely at that point where software no longer was
useful in getting strategic advantage, but had to be maintained in
order to keep the minimal advantage it represented. These people were
in my experience marginal people who could not hold real jobs. Their
writing and standards of logic were abominable.
> seem to recall that your principal focus is on rebutting personal
> attacks from (mostly) trolls. Whilst that's all very well, this
> newsgroup is actually supposed to be about C programming. (To some
> extent I am guilty of the same thing - I seem to be posting less and
> less about C nowadays, something I will try to fix.)
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within

On Jan 5, 12:38=A0am, Colonel Harlan Sanders  <Har...@kfc.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:22:33 -0800, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Repeated requests directed to Mr.Nilgeshave been ignored.
> >I encourage you to demonstrate that you are more reasonable than
> >he is.
>
> There have been more posts telling me not to post than I've made...
> but at least you're less hectoring than Mr Navia.
>
> It was always my intent to make one post on this little contretemps
> and then back off. I =A0will not be throwing any more rocks at the
> hornet. But he will always find or manufacture some issue to buzz
> about.

Harlan, you're addicted to shoring up a marginal personality by
pretending to be the Father Who Is Never Wrong. So of course you'll
never stop.

On Jan 4, 11:27=A0pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:
> In article <hhsi65$t...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> jacob navia =A0<ja...@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>
> >Colonel Harlan Sanders a =E9crit :
> >[snip off topic polemic]
>
> >Look, here is a C group.
>
> >You do not like somebody?
>
> >Use private email, blog, whatever.
>
> >You do not like spinoza111?
>
> >DO NOT ANSWER.
>
> >Let's discuss about C =A0ok?
>
> As I've demonstrate many times, other than stupid language lawyering (*),
> it is simply not possible to "discuss C" here, without being "off-topic"
> by most accepted definitions of that term.
>
> Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
> of the group to that of interpersonal BS. =A0We have merely followed thei=
r
> lead.
>
> (*) Which, although fascinating to some, it is of little interest to 95%
> of the population.

More specifically, they are in search of the person they are afraid
they've become. They aren't "programmers". Some of them are retirees,
others of them are the sort of caretakers left in meaningless jobs
after enormous "death march" software projects were completed long
ago, who are occasionally called upon to make minor changes.

My father was a smart man, for he asked me in 1971 where the jobs in
software would be once we got done. The answer of course was the
constant waves of layoffs of programmers and other middling white
collar professionals, combined with the post-Enlightenment need to
appoint a low-level demi-priesthood (complementary to the high priests
of the corporate world, the CEOs who in fact know very little, not
only about culture, science or even business, but of their own
operations), resulted in the sort of half-literate monks and vergers
and eunuchs who ceremoniously post here.

Seebach, for example, appears to have become an expert in scripting
languages because based on my own experience at Princeton (where the
slow academic decision process could never make up its mind whether
new software was needed, and where this process always decided to buy
and not make in order to evade responsibility), when you're a
programmer who wants to code but is waiting for some "study team" to
come up with some unreadable "report", you have nothing to do except
attend boring meetings and write meaningless reports. I automated
functions using Rexx on the mainframe in this downtime, and it appears
that the only programming Seebie can do consists of shell scripts he
decides to write.

These people are unable to write new code, and afraid to lest they be
subject to mockery for trivial mistakes as they subject real producers
to mockery.

Take a look at William Langiewiesche's book on Captain Sullenberger's
smooth landing on the Hudson river of a US airways Airbus.
Langiewiesche makes the point that although Sullenberger was working
at the maximum level of coolness and professionalism, the Airbus had
been designed, and programmed with software, deliberately to never
exceed its design limits, and its software made final adjustments to
Captain Sullenberger's own inputs which caused the water landing to be
as smooth as possible, something which almost eliminated panic during
egress.

[I rather doubt that the Airbus 3xx series was programmed in C.]

We've become servants of systems and as such, our job is not to fuck
up and reassure customers, bosses and clients that we won't. Based on
this, I would never as a client hire Heathfield in a programming job,
because he's a liar and makes absurd claims about the power of C, like
an airline pilot who wants to fly 707s because they give him more to
do in the cockpit.

If you want a real job, get out of programming and go to Haiti or
become a teacher.

On Jan 4, 11:27=A0pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:
> In article <hhsi65$t...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> jacob navia =A0<ja...@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>
> >Colonel Harlan Sanders a =E9crit :
> >[snip off topic polemic]
>
> >Look, here is a C group.
>
> >You do not like somebody?
>
> >Use private email, blog, whatever.
>
> >You do not like spinoza111?
>
> >DO NOT ANSWER.
>
> >Let's discuss about C =A0ok?
>
> As I've demonstrate many times, other than stupid language lawyering (*),
> it is simply not possible to "discuss C" here, without being "off-topic"
> by most accepted definitions of that term.
>
> Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topic
> of the group to that of interpersonal BS. =A0We have merely followed thei=
r
> lead.
>
> (*) Which, although fascinating to some, it is of little interest to 95%
> of the population.

BTW, Kenny, "if you want a real job" wasn't addressed to you. You
might be a real programmer, the exception who proves my rule, or the
Last of the Mohicans.

spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> writes:

>On Jan 4, 11:27=A0pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
>wrote:


Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
from nearly 3 weeks ago?

-- 
Chris.

On Jan 5, 2:48=A0am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-01-04, Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > For those who wonder why I "announce" this, it's very simple. =A0I real=
ly
> > will never read anything you say ever again. =A0If at some stage in the
> > future you name me in one of these obscure quasi-paranoid allusions I
> > will not be defending myself because I will not have read it. =A0This a=
cts
> > as a convenient public record of that.
>
> Good point.
>
> FWIW, I killfiled him ages ago. =A0People who pick a single model of huma=
n
> motivation and insist that everyone is actually living by it all the time
> no matter what are always pointless, regardless of which model they picke=
d.
> The amusing part is that he apparently thinks that you can be thinking fo=
r
> yourself by adopting a policy of uncritical and unthinking rejection of
> everything a particular set of people says to replace uncritical and

I really don't know what you're talking about, Scripto Boy. I gave you
points for being a script kiddie. I conceded that there were errors in
Schildt, only pointing out that you made similar errors :

Scripto Boy says, "the 'heap' is a DOS term"
Making real scientists squirm,
When attacking another
For making an error.


> unthinking acceptance of what they say. =A0This is one of the cases where=
 the
> opposite of stupid is still stupid.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. =A0Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@see=
bs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny picturesht=
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <chris@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> writes:

> Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
> from nearly 3 weeks ago?

I have no clue.

BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing:  I was regaling
one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he suddenly
said "Wait!  Is this guy Edward Nilges?"

The coworker?  Chris Torek.  :)

I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Jan 5, 2:23=A0am, Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
> > In article <9796eb84-65bb-42e4-b403-0af23f9d9...@c34g2000yqn.googlegrou=
ps.com>,
> > gwowen =A0<gwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Jan 4, 3:27=A0pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote=
:
>
> >>> Hence the regs have, long ago, led the charge to change the real topi=
c
> >>> of the group to that of interpersonal BS. =A0We have merely followed =
their
> >>> lead.
>
> >>Have you tried thinking for yourself? =A0It's not as hard as its made
> >>out to be.
>
> > That's rich. =A0Who do you think it is, in this group, who thinks for
> > themselves? =A0Is it the Establishment? =A0No, of course, it never is. =
=A0It
> > is the anti-Establishment, as it always is.
>
> OK Kenny, I've given you a couple of weeks, and your C input has been
> NULL. =A0Join the other bozo's in the kill file.
>
> For those who wonder why I "announce" this, it's very simple. =A0I really
> will never read anything you say ever again. =A0If at some stage in the
> future you name me in one of these obscure quasi-paranoid allusions I
> will not be defending myself because I will not have read it. =A0This act=
s
> as a convenient public record of that.

Studs Lonigan leaves the bar, squaring his thin shoulders
Lighting a cigarette, says to his pals
Boys, I will never touch another drop
This drinking has got to stop.
I will work out at the gym
I'll stop looking at the trolley quim
And no more jerkin' off, it is a mortal sin.

> --
> Online waterways route planner =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|http://canalplan.e=
u
> Plan trips, see photos, check facilities =A0|http://canalplan.org.uk

On Jan 5, 12:38=A0am, Colonel Harlan Sanders  <Har...@kfc.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:22:33 -0800, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Repeated requests directed to Mr.Nilgeshave been ignored.
> >I encourage you to demonstrate that you are more reasonable than
> >he is.
>
> There have been more posts telling me not to post than I've made...
> but at least you're less hectoring than Mr Navia.
>
> It was always my intent to make one post on this little contretemps
> and then back off. I =A0will not be throwing any more rocks at the
> hornet. But he will always find or manufacture some issue to buzz
> about.

Let me be your father, let me be
Your big brother, let me be Authority.

Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes:

>said "Wait!  Is this guy Edward Nilges?"

>The coworker?  Chris Torek.  :)

>I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!

.... certainly from another time!

-- 
Chris.

On Jan 4, 7:07=A0pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Colonel Harlan Sanders a =E9crit :
> [snip off topic polemic]
>
> Look, here is a C group.
>
> You do not like somebody?
>
> Use private email, blog, whatever.
>
> You do not like spinoza111?
>
> DO NOT ANSWER.
>
> Let's discuss about C =A0ok?

You presume, Monsieur, that these posters are adults like you. They
couldn't write a compiler if their lives depended upon it. Therefore
they specializing in finding errors and the politics of personal
destruction.

On Jan 4, 2:50=A0pm, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> >.... (To some
> >extent I am guilty of the same thing - I seem to be posting less and
> >less about C nowadays, something I will try to fix.)

One can only wonder why, one can only sigh
One can only say, go and sin no more.
But if you are a sailor that has fallen out favor
With the remorseless and babbling C,
You need to look within and find your shadow self.
I hold up to you like Perseus, Medusa's glass
In which you see true who you are: liar,
Incompetent, thug, and creep, and any other name
That does not disbecome my state at seat.
You can't stand the heat but you won't leave the kitchen,
For like a dog you feed on scraps, and fight with dogs
For a place to lick you ass that is closest to the fire.
Get the fuck out of here, Dickwad, you are null
You can't program and your rants are dull.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Chris.

On Jan 21, 12:14=A0pm, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> writes:
> >said "Wait! =A0Is this guy EdwardNilges?"
> >The coworker? =A0Chris Torek. =A0:)
> >I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
>
> ... certainly from another time!
>
> --
> Chris.

Hey, thanks Chris, for keepin' the subject line on target.

Richard Heathfield told a lie
Eddie Nilges made him cry

On Jan 4, 4:40=A0am, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> spinoza1111 wrote:
> > On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> > this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In the
> > Matter of Herb Schildt":
>
> <snip nonsense>
>
> I wonder if you will ever amount to anything productive instead of contin=
uously

I wonder why you pose as a Father,
Using canned phrases unexamined,
When you know so little about me.
I am the author of a programming book,
With thirty years of experience,
Back in the day when we were allowed to get gay,
And actually write code,
Instead of sitting on bubble butts
And criticising better men.

> wasting your time polluting a series of newsgroups with your trolling and=
 series of
> absurd personal attacks.

Use your common sense
It's called, self-defence.

>
> Rui Maciel

On Jan 4, 12:51=A0pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:12:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
> > <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> In <90k2k59kj6sca6sc43s2lq4uc65tk0n...@4ax.com>, Colonel Harlan
> >> Sanders wrote:
>
> >> Well, before we get onto what he wrote, can I just say that I wish he
> >> hadn't changed the subject line. It is almost always the case that
> >> threads which attack people even in the subject line are indicators
> >> that the attacker is a bozo, and so it's best to avoid such personal
> >> subject lines.
>
> > Most newsreaders, and Google, will show it as a continuation of the
> > same thread from the References header.
>
> >Nilges' subject line was "Richard Heathfield's lie", I didn't want to
> > endorse that and thought if I was gloing to change the subject, I
> > might as well go all the way. That makes me a bozo?
>
> Not necessarily, no, but it isn't a good sign. Sorry and all that. There
> is almost always a better way to word such things. For example, instead
> of "Richard Heathfield's lie", spinoza1...@yahoo.com could have used
> something like "Correction sought regarding claim about my comp.risks
> articles". And instead of changing it to "EdwardNilges'slie", you
> could either have left it alone (doing so does *not* endorse it in any
> way), or perhaps changed it to something like "Usenet libel threat
> deadline expires without incident".
>
> Obviously it's up to you - but those who care about their online
> reputations should be far more worried about what they themselves say
> than about how others describe them.
>
> =A0> If I was taking
>
> > the high road I wouldn't have posted anything, so perhaps that's
> > justified.
>
> I think you would be less open to such descriptions if you built up a
> solid track record of discussing C programming. I could be wrong, but I
> seem to recall that your principal focus is on rebutting personal
> attacks from (mostly) trolls. Whilst that's all very well, this
> newsgroup is actually supposed to be about C programming. (To some
> extent I am guilty of the same thing - I seem to be posting less and
> less about C nowadays, something I will try to fix.)

Do.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within

On Jan 21, 12:08=A0pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatrib=
e
> > from nearly 3 weeks ago?
>
> I have no clue.
>
> BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing: =A0I was reg=
aling
> one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he sudde=
nly

Don't have any real work to do, I see:
Another eunuch of the new world order,
Sittin' around with the guys of the office,
Having found his quota of bugs for the day,
Laughing at people, like a little boy.

> said "Wait! =A0Is this guy EdwardNilges?"
>
> The coworker? =A0Chris Torek. =A0:)
>
> I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. =A0Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@see=
bs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny picturesht=
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <chris@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
>> from nearly 3 weeks ago?
> 
> I have no clue.
> 
> BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing:  I was regaling
> one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he suddenly
> said "Wait!  Is this guy Edward Nilges?"
> 
> The coworker?  Chris Torek.  :)
> 
> I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!

I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted 
character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

On 2010-01-21, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted 
> character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.

I'd suggest the best target would be that he wears glasses.  If that's
not good for a week or two of mockery, I don't know what is.

(Unless my memory's wrong and he doesn't.)

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-01-21, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted 
>> character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.
> 
> I'd suggest the best target would be that he wears glasses.  If that's
> not good for a week or two of mockery, I don't know what is.
> 
> (Unless my memory's wrong and he doesn't.)

He does. But there's a better target for mocking Chris Torek - he 
programs in C! How funny is *that*!

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

spinoza1111 wrote:

> On Jan 4, 4:40 am, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 wrote:
>> > On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
>> > this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In the
>> > Matter of Herb Schildt":
>>
>> <snip nonsense>
>>
>> I wonder if you will ever amount to anything productive instead of
>> continuously
> 
> I wonder why you pose as a Father,
> Using canned phrases unexamined,
> When you know so little about me.
> I am the author of a programming book,
> With thirty years of experience,
> Back in the day when we were allowed to get gay,
> And actually write code,
> Instead of sitting on bubble butts
> And criticising better men.
> 
>> wasting your time polluting a series of newsgroups with your trolling and
>> series of absurd personal attacks.
> 
> Use your common sense
> It's called, self-defence.
> 
>>
>> Rui Maciel

If you don't like C and the people who use it so much, then maybe you should 
learn BASIC. And hangout with some BASIC users. You'll learn neat things 
like:

10 PRINT "spinoza WTH are you talking about!";
20 GOTO 10

-- 
*From the 1966 TV series:*
Robin: You can't get away from Batman that easy!
Batman: Easily.
Robin: Easily.
Batman: Good grammer is essential, Robin.

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Seebs wrote:
>> On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <chris@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>> spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatribe
>>> from nearly 3 weeks ago?
>>
>> I have no clue.
>>
>> BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing:  I was 
>> regaling
>> one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he 
>> suddenly
>> said "Wait!  Is this guy Edward Nilges?"
>>
>> The coworker?  Chris Torek.  :)
>>
>> I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
> 
> I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted 
> character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.

Or update your kill file and ignore his nonsense.

-- 
Ian Collins

On Jan 22, 11:31=A0am, jamm <nos...@no.net> wrote:
> spinoza1111 wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 4:40 am, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> spinoza1111 wrote:
> >> > On Dec 24 at 3:15 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote this, and it is, at
> >> > this moment, in the comp.lang.c.moderated group in the thread "In th=
e
> >> > Matter of Herb Schildt":
>
> >> <snip nonsense>
>
> >> I wonder if you will ever amount to anything productive instead of
> >> continuously
>
> > I wonder why you pose as a Father,
> > Using canned phrases unexamined,
> > When you know so little about me.
> > I am the author of a programming book,
> > With thirty years of experience,
> > Back in the day when we were allowed to get gay,
> > And actually write code,
> > Instead of sitting on bubble butts
> > And criticising better men.
>
> >> wasting your time polluting a series of newsgroups with your trolling =
and
> >> series of absurd personal attacks.
>
> > Use your common sense
> > It's called, self-defence.
>
> >> Rui Maciel
>
> If you don't like C and the people who use it so much, then maybe you sho=
uld
> learn BASIC. And hangout with some BASIC users. You'll learn neat things
> like:
>
> 10 PRINT "spinoza WTH are you talking about!";
> 20 GOTO 10
>
> --
> *From the 1966 TV series:*
> Robin: You can't get away from Batman that easy!
> Batman: Easily.
> Robin: Easily.
> Batman: Good grammer is essential, Robin.


It is all rather low-level to mistake fandom for knowledge or even
knowledge's ersatz, "expertise". Knowing something as a scientific
matter has nothing to do with whether you like it.

On Jan 21, 5:43=A0pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Seebs wrote:
> > On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> >> spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatri=
be
> >> from nearly 3 weeks ago?
>
> > I have no clue.
>
> > BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing: =A0I was r=
egaling
> > one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he sud=
denly
> > said "Wait! =A0Is this guy EdwardNilges?"
>
> > The coworker? =A0Chris Torek. =A0:)
>
> > I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
>
> I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted
> character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.

Excuse me, the character assassination started when I was discussing
OO in comp.programming, and Chris Torek started an autistic and
childish rant about Visual Basic efficiency that was off-topic.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within

On Jan 22, 6:18=A0am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-01-21, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted
> > character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.
>
> I'd suggest the best target would be that he wears glasses. =A0If that's
> not good for a week or two of mockery, I don't know what is.

Seebach, you're the bully. You started in on Schildt out of envy and
you call Apress colleagues morons. Some of us defend ourselves. Quit
whining.
>
> (Unless my memory's wrong and he doesn't.)
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. =A0Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@see=
bs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny picturesht=
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

jamm wrote:

> *From the 1966 TV series:*
> Robin: You can't get away from Batman that easy!
> Batman: Easily.
> Robin: Easily.
> Batman: Good grammer is essential, Robin.

Robin: How about spelling?

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Mandatory spelling error can be found hear.

On Jan 22, 12:32=A0pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > Seebs wrote:
> >> On 2010-01-21, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> >>> spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >>> Oh, great, guess which tiresome troll is back, reviving his own diatr=
ibe
> >>> from nearly 3 weeks ago?
>
> >> I have no clue.
>
> >> BTW, long-time participants will probably find this amusing: =A0I was
> >> regaling
> >> one of my coworkers with hilarious stories from comp.lang.c, and he
> >> suddenly
> >> said "Wait! =A0Is this guy EdwardNilges?"
>
> >> The coworker? =A0Chris Torek. =A0:)
>
> >> I guess Spinny's famous from other groups, too!
>
> > I suppose we should now prepare ourselves for yet another attempted
> > character assassination, on Chris Torek this time.
>
> Or update your kill file and ignore his nonsense.
>
> --
> Ian Collins


The age old question being how these guys who claim
To have Killed the Troll can be so off their game
As to see the Torment of the Troll, the blood in the water,
And with such boyish enthusiasm and such hards on are drawn back to
the slaughter
Like German soldiers in World War II
Goggling at the shooting of the Jew
Or goggle-eyed rednecks at the lynch.
It's a cinch,
If you come in here and say kill him
You are full of hatred and malice
But because you're a coward you won't admit it.
They're not interested in peace, their metaphor is kill
But they're too cowardly to do so with a will.
Instead they pompously insert
Pencil dicks into the discussion
Treating this newsgroup as their own personal glory hole
By saying, just kill that asshole.
>

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> jamm wrote:
> 
>> *From the 1966 TV series:*
>> Robin: You can't get away from Batman that easy!
>> Batman: Easily.
>> Robin: Easily.
>> Batman: Good grammer is essential, Robin.
> 
> Robin: How about spelling?
> 
Spilling

-- 
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
>court.

Here we are, two months later
Nilges has not only failed to carry out his ludicrous legal threats
against Heathfield, he's gone on to make a similar empty threat
against Seebach:

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:51:23 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Feb 27, 2:55�am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
.....
>I'm beginning to wonder if you are truly an evil man.
>
>You can have countless bugs and be excused, it seems to me, and your
>pretense of humility is unlinked to any charity (and therefore is not
>humility), since you charged Schildt with "hundreds" of bugs and
>coined a foul word out of his patronym, and you've completely
>misrepresented my work, which is vastly superior to yours even though
>I don't fucking know C that much, in hopes that newbies and managers
>won't do due diligence, and just chance upon your wild and
>unsubtantiated claims, your libelous and criminal claims, concerning
>my competence.
>
>But dig it, puke: attorneys WILL do due diligence. And your employer
>(and Apress) are not going to be amused if they are involved in the
>mess you made.


Looking forward to the next  case, Ed.

Is there such a thing as a inverse class action?
You could save a lot of time and just lay charges against everyone who
disrespects you or looks at you funny in the street. String them all
up, it's only what they deserve.   

Or you can fantasise how you'd snub Seebach at a party. I'm sure his
ears are burning about that. 

Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
> <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
>> court.
> 
> Here we are, two months later
> Nilges has not only failed to carry out his ludicrous legal threats
> against Heathfield, he's gone on to make a similar empty threat
> against Seebach:

Actually, I *did* eventually get a letter from a lawyer. I have no idea 
whether it's Mr Nilges's lawyer, but I suppose it's not impossible. It 
goes like this:

"Dear Mr Heathfield

"My client, whom I shall not name in this letter, claims that you are a 
Nazi Fascist Ansi-Semite [sic] MI5 Operative, and that you are damaging 
his reputation by laughing your socks off whenever he posts source code 
to Usenet. He further claims that you are constantly attempting to 
deceive people into thinking that  he's incompetent by pointing out vast 
swathes of technical and logical errors in his articles to which he has 
no adequate response, technical or otherwise. And he further claims that 
you are a bully, a thug, and a sexist racist homophobic pig who should 
be hounded out of comp.lang.c because it's no more than you deserve, you 
white-assed fag.

"I could not resist writing to you, if only to say this to you: if you 
think *you've* got problems, please bear in mind that this guy has my 
*phone number*."


-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>  I suppose it's not impossible. It
> goes like this:
>
> "Dear Mr Heathfield

  snipped

Now you have done it, I have blown coffee all over
my keyboard :)

w..


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

On 2010-02-27, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> "I could not resist writing to you, if only to say this to you: if you 
> think *you've* got problems, please bear in mind that this guy has my 
> *phone number*."

I read this to Beloved Spouse, who responded with dumbfounded amazement
followed by a great deal of laughter.  Very nicely done.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Feb 28, 7:23=A0am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST),spinoza1111
> > <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
> >> court.
>
> > Here we are, two months later
> > Nilges has not only failed to carry out his ludicrous legal threats
> > against Heathfield, he's gone on to make a similar empty threat
> > against Seebach:
>
> Actually, I *did* eventually get a letter from a lawyer. I have no idea
> whether it's Mr Nilges's lawyer, but I suppose it's not impossible. It
> goes like this:
>
> "Dear Mr Heathfield
>
> "My client, whom I shall not name in this letter, claims that you are a
> Nazi Fascist Ansi-Semite [sic] MI5 Operative, and that you are damaging
> his reputation by laughing your socks off whenever he posts source code
> to Usenet. He further claims that you are constantly attempting to
> deceive people into thinking that =A0he's incompetent by pointing out vas=
t
> swathes of technical and logical errors in his articles to which he has
> no adequate response, technical or otherwise. And he further claims that
> you are a bully, a thug, and a sexist racist homophobic pig who should
> be hounded out of comp.lang.c because it's no more than you deserve, you
> white-assed fag.
>
> "I could not resist writing to you, if only to say this to you: if you
> think *you've* got problems, please bear in mind that this guy has my
> *phone number*."
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within

This is a lie. Of course, I never sent this, nor wrote it, and you
lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
material for my real lawyer.

On Feb 28, 1:59=A0pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-02-27, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "I could not resist writing to you, if only to say this to you: if you
> > think *you've* got problems, please bear in mind that this guy has my
> > *phone number*."
>
> I read this to Beloved Spouse, who responded with dumbfounded amazement
> followed by a great deal of laughter. =A0Very nicely done.

We had fed the heart on fantasies,
The heart's grown brutal from the fare;
More substance in our enmities
Than in our love; O honey-bees,
Come build in the empty house of the stare.

My contempt for you is almost matched by my contempt for people who
see this and don't call Seebach out.

>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. =A0Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@see=
bs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny picturesht=
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

"spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:e99666eb-dd79-4b31-b338-f3b35eef2bf6@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 28, 7:23 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST),spinoza1111
> > <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
> >> court.
>
> > Here we are, two months later
> > Nilges has not only failed to carry out his ludicrous legal threats
> > against Heathfield, he's gone on to make a similar empty threat
> > against Seebach:
>
> Actually, I *did* eventually get a letter from a lawyer. I have no idea
> whether it's Mr Nilges's lawyer, but I suppose it's not impossible. It
> goes like this:
>
> "Dear Mr Heathfield
[...]


> This is a lie. Of course, I never sent this, nor wrote it, and you
> lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
> material for my real lawyer.

How much will your lawyer charge you to read this? 

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:e99666eb-dd79-4b31-b338-f3b35eef2bf6@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 7:23 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
>> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST),spinoza1111
>> > <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
>> >> court.
>>
>> > Here we are, two months later
>> > Nilges has not only failed to carry out his ludicrous legal threats
>> > against Heathfield, he's gone on to make a similar empty threat
>> > against Seebach:
>>
>> Actually, I *did* eventually get a letter from a lawyer. I have no idea
>> whether it's Mr Nilges's lawyer, but I suppose it's not impossible. It
>> goes like this:
>>
>> "Dear Mr Heathfield
> [...]
> 
> 
>> This is a lie. Of course, I never sent this, nor wrote it, and you
>> lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
>> material for my real lawyer.
> 
> How much will your lawyer charge you to read this?

If Nilges were stupid enough to show his lawyer the article, the lawyer 
will do at least three things:

(a) find it extremely hard not to laugh;
(b) point out to his client that, since it doesn't name anyone, it's 
hard to see how it could damage anyone's reputation or constitute a 
misrepresentation - Nilges's statement "I never sent this, nor wrote it" 
is redundant since nobody ever claimed he did;
(c) present a bill. If the lawyer's a regular kinda guy, he might give a 
discount on this occasion (see (a)).

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

On 2010-03-01, Chris M. Thomasson <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:e99666eb-dd79-4b31-b338-f3b35eef2bf6@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> This is a lie. Of course, I never sent this, nor wrote it, and you
>> lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
>> material for my real lawyer.

> How much will your lawyer charge you to read this? 

And will the lawyer be aware of the general history of rulings suggesting
that obvious satire is not generally actionable?

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

It would be a full-time occupation to document all of Nilges' lies,
but this one is a gem:

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:45:12 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

>However, it's plain that I'm a piker when it comes to being offensive.
>See Heathfield's post in the thread Edward Nilges' Lie.

Nilges' uncharacteristic modesty betrays him. No one here even comes
close to being so consistently and grossly offensive as Nilges.


>Because he cannot code properly and doesn't know computer science, and
>is an uncultivated boor who works as a temp, he thinks it's cute to
>forge letters said to be from me, a violation of the law.
>
>Julienne and blm, you are enablers, because you don't complain to him
>about his behavior: like many women in this type of situation, you're
>a little dazzled by the thug and his transgressions; perhaps an
>atavistic part of you is not a little excited by blood, metaphorical
>or otherwise. I am using this newsgroup as intended and even Seebach
>has conceded that these threads have been useful and productive. I
>start them, whereas Heathfield and Seebach endeavor to destroy them
>because they're not qualified to participate on a level with people
>like Navia and Willem, let alone me (100% bug rate in strlen, absurd
>linked list, heap a DOS term, is not a programmer per se, etc).
>
>Julienne, blm, and Malcolm, I shall not participate in these newsgroup
>until you find it in yourselves to complain to Heathfield and Seebach
>in the thread Edward Nilges' lie where Heathfield posts a letter he
>says is from my lawyer: this was a criminal act on his part. I will
>not read or post to these newsgroups, and you people can return to
>your regularly scheduled programming.

Nilges promises to leave a newsgroup, or Usenet,  almost as often as
he promises to sue someone for libel. Sadly his resolve rarely lasts
for more than a half hour.

>You may email me at spinoza1111@yahoo.com. But what I would most
>appreciate is copies of your post or emails to Seebach and Heathfield,
>asking them to desist. This type of behavior is the norm in groups of
>fair and decent people.
>
>Otherwise, I am wasting my time here.
>
>Malcolm, Julienne, blm: unless I hear from you by Monday March 8,
>under advice of my counsel, genuine letters are going this week to
>Seebach's employer and my publisher (who is also Seebach's publisher)
>concerning his behavior. In addition, a letter is going to SAMS
>concerning Heathfield.

Another deadline! Wonderful. 

My bet:  He has never and will never follow this up in the real world.
And he has no "counsel".

Though it's slightly OT on the subject of Nilges' lies, it's hard not
to be awestruck by the depth of his hypocrisy in making an issue about
a parody that echoes his own words, that says nothing about him at
all, while browsing his recent output will find it full of vicious,
direct personal insults and what is certainly libellous statements
(not that anyone else would actually think of  trying to take them to
court).

On 2010-03-01, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Harlan@kfc.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:45:12 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
><spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Malcolm, Julienne, blm: unless I hear from you by Monday March 8,
>>under advice of my counsel, genuine letters are going this week to
>>Seebach's employer and my publisher (who is also Seebach's publisher)
>>concerning his behavior. In addition, a letter is going to SAMS
>>concerning Heathfield.

> My bet:  He has never and will never follow this up in the real world.
> And he has no "counsel".

I wouldn't be totally surprised if he contacted the publishers, because
doing that is cheap and easy.  I really don't feel a great deal of concern
on the issue, though.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Mar 1, 2:47=A0am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:e99666eb-dd79-4b31-b338-f3b35eef2bf6@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com..=
..
> > On Feb 28, 7:23 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> >> Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:49:56 -0800 (PST),spinoza1111
> >> > <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> Retract this lie, Heathfield, or I swear to God I will see you in
> >> >> court.
>
> >> > Here we are, two months later
> >> > Nilges has not only failed to carry out his ludicrous legal threats
> >> > against Heathfield, he's gone on to make a similar empty threat
> >> > against Seebach:
>
> >> Actually, I *did* eventually get a letter from a lawyer. I have no ide=
a
> >> whether it's Mr Nilges's lawyer, but I suppose it's not impossible. It
> >> goes like this:
>
> >> "Dear Mr Heathfield
> > [...]
>
> >> This is a lie. Of course, I never sent this, nor wrote it, and you
> >> lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
> >> material for my real lawyer.
>
> > How much will your lawyer charge you to read this?
>
> If Nilges were stupid enough to show his lawyer the article, the lawyer
> will do at least three things:
>
> (a) find it extremely hard not to laugh;
> (b) point out to his client that, since it doesn't name anyone, it's
> hard to see how it could damage anyone's reputation or constitute a
> misrepresentation


Well, explicit language is not always needed:

    Hey, I didn't threaten him or nuthin'
    I just said it would be a shame if the
    shop burned down.

I think it would be ruled that it was obvious who
the parody was aimed at.  On the other hand since
you do not attribute anything to Nilges that he
has not said, it is hard to see this as actionable.

                     -William Hughes

On Mar 1, 4:28=A0am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-03-01, Chris M. Thomasson <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:e99666eb-dd79-4b31-b338-f3b35eef2bf6@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com..=
..
> >> This is a lie. Of course, I never sent this, nor wrote it, and you
> >> lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
> >> material for my real lawyer.
> > How much will your lawyer charge you to read this?
>
> And will the lawyer be aware of the general history of rulings suggesting
> that obvious satire is not generally actionable?

Rulings where?  There is a great deal of uncertainty as
to where, if there was a tort, the tort took place,
(United Kingdom, where the most important servers are,
where the message was read ...)  The first thing the lawyer
should do after cleaning his desk, is to determine the
best place to bring a claim.

                       - William Hughes

"Seebs" <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:slrnhonadn.4vu.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net...
> On 2010-03-01, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Harlan@kfc.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:45:12 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
>><spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Malcolm, Julienne, blm: unless I hear from you by Monday March 8,
>>>under advice of my counsel, genuine letters are going this week to
>>>Seebach's employer and my publisher (who is also Seebach's publisher)
>>>concerning his behavior. In addition, a letter is going to SAMS
>>>concerning Heathfield.
>
>> My bet:  He has never and will never follow this up in the real world.
>> And he has no "counsel".
>
> I wouldn't be totally surprised if he contacted the publishers, because
> doing that is cheap and easy.  I really don't feel a great deal of concern
> on the issue, though.

in ogni modo per la gente che abita qui,
vi e' un detto, un proverbio
"fai bene e scordalo, fai male e pensaci"

"if you make good, you forget about it;
 if you make harm(ill), you think about it"


----------------
Sir {23: 19}
18 L�uomo infedele al proprio letto
   dice fra s� �Chi mi vede?
   Tenebra intorno a me e le mura mi nascondono;
   nessuno mi vede, che devo temere?
   Dei miei peccati non si ricorder� l�Altissimo�.

19 Il suo timore riguarda solo gli occhi degli uomini;
   non sa che gli occhi del Signore
   sono miriadi di volte pi� luminosi del sole;
   essi vedono tutte le azioni degli uomini
   e penetrano fin nei luoghi pi� segreti.

20 Tutte le cose, prima che fossero create, gli erano note;
   allo stesso modo anche dopo la creazione.
21 Quest�uomo sar� punito nelle piazze della citt�,
   sar� preso dove meno se l�aspetta.

On 2010-03-01, William Hughes <wpihughes@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rulings where?  There is a great deal of uncertainty as
> to where, if there was a tort, the tort took place,
> (United Kingdom, where the most important servers are,
> where the message was read ...)  The first thing the lawyer
> should do after cleaning his desk, is to determine the
> best place to bring a claim.

I'm not aware of any likely jurisdiction where judges would take seriously
a defamation claim against an obvious bit of satire.  I've never heard of
such a case going anywhere.  My guess is that any threats Nilges actually
sends will be resolved much along the lines of Arkell v. Pressdram.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs wrote:

> I'm not aware of any likely jurisdiction where judges would take seriously
> a defamation claim against an obvious bit of satire.  I've never heard of
> such a case going anywhere.  My guess is that any threats Nilges actually
> sends will be resolved much along the lines of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Short enough the wording should be familiar.

On 1 Mar, 04:18, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<stuff>

 I thought you weren't posting anymore?

On 2010-03-02, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 Mar, 04:18, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
><stuff>

>  I thought you weren't posting anymore?

Please read the subject line.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

[snips]

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:53:12 +0800, Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:

> Nilges' uncharacteristic modesty betrays him. No one here even comes
> close to being so consistently and grossly offensive as Nilges.

Damn, I'll have to try harder.  Obviously, the "spaces vs tabs" thing 
just didn't cut it.

How about "Scott Nudds for president!" ?

On Mar 3, 12:27=A0am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:53:12 +0800, Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
> > Nilges' uncharacteristic modesty betrays him. No one here even comes
> > close to being so consistently and grossly offensive as Nilges.
>
> Damn, I'll have to try harder. =A0Obviously, the "spaces vs tabs" thing
> just didn't cut it.
>
> How about "Scott Nudds for president!" ?

Idiotic and very dated, but hardly "grossly offensive".

[<asbestos underwear on>  Even Nudds could not be worse
than Bush]

                     - William Hughes

William Hughes wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:27 am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:53:12 +0800, Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
>>> Nilges' uncharacteristic modesty betrays him. No one here even comes
>>> close to being so consistently and grossly offensive as Nilges.
>> Damn, I'll have to try harder.  Obviously, the "spaces vs tabs" thing
>> just didn't cut it.
>>
>> How about "Scott Nudds for president!" ?
> 
> Idiotic and very dated, but hardly "grossly offensive".
> 

i[-1] Scott?

Greets

On Mar 1, 4:28=A0pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-03-01, Chris M. Thomasson <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:e99666eb-dd79-4b31-b338-f3b35eef2bf6@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com..=
..
> >> This is a lie. Of course, I never sent this, nor wrote it, and you
> >> lack my mastery of English. It's a cut and paste job. Wow, thanks for
> >> material for my real lawyer.
> > How much will your lawyer charge you to read this?
>
> And will the lawyer be aware of the general history of rulings suggesting
> that obvious satire is not generally actionable?

Crack a book Peter. The rulings you refer to make a distinction
between public and private figures. While it is legal to tell
hyperbolic lies about a public person (the precedent being the Supreme
Court's judgement in favor of Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt
in the matter of a caricature of Pat Robertson), it remains a cause of
action to tell libelous lies about a private or public person when,
even in the case of the public person, they are not told with
"redeeming social value" as a part of free political speech but with
malice and intent to destroy.

When Richard claimed, falsely, that I've never been accepted for
posting at comp.risks, he was not engaged in protected speech. He was,
under the law, telling a lie intended to defame and discredit in order
to enhance a business reputation and make money. British and American
courts will not call this "satire".

Under counsel's advice I have sent a letter to your (our) publisher.
This issue is not going away.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. =A0Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@see=
bs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny picturesht=
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Mar 3, 12:42=A0am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-03-02, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Mar, 04:18,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ><stuff>
> > =A0I thought you weren't posting anymore?
>
> Please read the subject line.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. =A0Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@see=
bs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny picturesht=
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

I will pursue all avenues to end the bullying of myself and others in
this forum. They are not to be the personal toilet of American
"programmers" who can't code worth dick. As we have seen, people come
here electronically from mainland China at some risk to improve their
skills, and you filthy little bastards mock their English and lie to
them on technical matters.

This forum is for the discussion of C. And, Mr. Seebach, if you have
not studied computer science at university level, we would expect from
you a higher level of technical ability in compensation, but you have
given us:

*  A program that claims to do something (replace %s) and doesn't do
it
*  A one line program with a beginner's error
*  Poorly formatted code that shows no understanding that
"readability" doesn't mean "my favorite sloppy style"
*  Constant personal attacks

END CYBER-BULLING IN COMP.LANG.C

spinoza1111 wrote:


> This issue is not going away.
>>

ahaha excellent! i can't wait to see.. what will he do next?!?

spinoza1111 wrote:

<irrelevant stuff snipped>

> When Richard claimed, falsely, that I've never been accepted for
> posting at comp.risks,

I made an *incorrect* claim about comp.risks, but that wasn't the 
incorrect claim I made. The incorrect claim I made was about the 
cluefulness of the moderator of comp.risks.

> he was not engaged in protected speech.

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.

> He was,
> under the law, telling a lie

Rubbish.


> intended to defame and discredit in order
> to enhance a business reputation and make money.

Rubbish.


> British and American courts will not call this "satire".

Right, because it's never going to reach court.

<snip>

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

On Mar 14, 4:30=A0pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> spinoza1111wrote:
>
> <irrelevant stuff snipped>
>
> > When Richard claimed, falsely, that I've never been accepted for
> > posting at comp.risks,
>
> I made an *incorrect* claim about comp.risks, but that wasn't the
> incorrect claim I made. The incorrect claim I made was about the
> cluefulness of the moderator of comp.risks.

No, you claimed I'd never been accepted as a malicious lie intended to
be seen for purposes of defamation and commercial gain. Then you
libeled one of the most respected people in the field. In my direct
experience, he or his designate reads every post carefully for
acceptability and communicates with the post author when he doesn't
understand, unlike Seebach, who is incompetent as a moderator as well
as a programmer.

I'd love to see you sleazeballs in a courtroom with such a figure.
>
> > he was not engaged in protected speech.
>
> 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.

In my case, since I'm not a public figure, there are causes of action
in USA law as well as British law. I suggest that you apologize for
your conduct over the past ten years as people have requested to avoid
further action.

>
> > He was,
> > under the law, telling a lie
>
> Rubbish.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

"And I suppose you lot would rather go to the pictures!"
"Well, yes, sir"
"Right, then off with the lot of you"
[Announcer] "Democracy and humanitarianism have always been the
trademarks of the British Army"
"Rubbish!"
>
> > intended to defame and discredit in order
> > to enhance a business reputation and make money.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> > British and American courts will not call this "satire".
>
> Right, because it's never going to reach court.

Hopefully, not. This is because I seek:

A public apology from you for your conduct in this newsgroup
A similar apology from Seebach
Withdrawal of "C: the Complete Nonsense"

>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within

spinoza1111 wrote:
> On Mar 14, 4:30 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> spinoza1111wrote:
>>
>> <irrelevant stuff snipped>
>>
>>> When Richard claimed, falsely, that I've never been accepted for
>>> posting at comp.risks,
>> I made an *incorrect* claim about comp.risks, but that wasn't the
>> incorrect claim I made. The incorrect claim I made was about the
>> cluefulness of the moderator of comp.risks.
> 
> No, you claimed I'd never been accepted as a malicious lie

If you want to fight, fine, go fight someone else. This is a C 
newsgroup, not a bozo cupboard. I don't have time for this junk.

<nonsense snipped>

>>
>>> British and American courts will not call this "satire".
>> Right, because it's never going to reach court.
> 
> Hopefully, not. This is because I seek:
> 
> A public apology from you for your conduct in this newsgroup

You can seek all you like, but no such apology will be forthcoming, 
since I don't see anything particularly wrong with my behaviour in this 
newsgroup, except perhaps for over-indulging bozos like you.

<snip>

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

On 14/03/2010 13:58, spinoza1111 wrote:
> On Mar 14, 4:30 pm, Richard Heathfield<r...@see.sig.invalid>  wrote:

>> 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.

-- 
Tim

"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

IN all seriousness.. why would you keep coming here, flaming the C language 
and making accusations against a few of the regulars here, stiring up 
trouble, OVER and OVER? Its inappropriate and illogical. You voiced your 
beef long ago I think, but you keep lashing out. Do you realize that you 
appear to be throwing a tantrum?

This is what all usenet cranks and kooks have in common. That's why you have 
been labeled such.

Now you've said that C is for retards. I for one don't appreciate that.

On Mar 15, 3:22=A0am, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> On 14/03/2010 13:58,spinoza1111wrote:
>
> > On Mar 14, 4:30 pm, Richard Heathfield<r...@see.sig.invalid> =A0wrote:
> >> I am guessing that you are using the term in a specifically Usanian wa=
y.
> >> 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.
>
> --
> Tim
>
> "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.

On Mar 15, 3:50=A0am, jamm <nos...@nomail.net> wrote:
> IN all seriousness.. why would you keep coming here, flaming the C langua=
ge
> and making accusations against a few of the regulars here, stiring up
> trouble, OVER and OVER? Its inappropriate and illogical. You voiced your
> beef long ago I think, but you keep lashing out. Do you realize that you
> appear to be throwing a tantrum?

Perhaps: but how is it that I'm so articulate, able to write
grammatically and even in traditional poetic forms? I'd suggest that
people who are chewing the carpet sound more like "Colonel" Harlan
Sanders or Heathfield, both of whose output is full of inconcealed
hatred and malice, and although fairly literate, only because they
rigidly stay within conventional, and thus for them easily
expressible, syntax.

I suggest to you that what angers people and causes the canard that
I'm throwing the tantrum, not they, is that they, moronized by
"programming" jobs that demand hyperfocus but little thinking, is the
Churchillian way in which I seem to be having fun in print, even as
Winston, in his lifetime, reduced several Liberals and Conservatives
to spluttering Blimpish rage.

>
> This is what all usenet cranks and kooks have in common. That's why you h=
ave
> been labeled such.
>
> Now you've said that C is for retards. I for one don't appreciate that.

It is. It is a flawed language in many ways, developed as an
adolescent prank on Multics and PL/I, and "standardization" has only
made it worse.

Only in a culture, such as that of American programming, in which
management has tried over the years to reduce thinking will the new
Troglodyte class be so defensive.

On Mar 15, 8:08=A0pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:22=A0am, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
> > On 14/03/2010 13:58,spinoza1111wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 14, 4:30 pm, Richard Heathfield<r...@see.sig.invalid> =A0wrote=
:
> > >> 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, an=
d
> > > 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.
>
>
>
> > --
> > Tim
>
> > "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

On 15/03/2010 12:08, spinoza1111 wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:22 am, Tim Streater<timstrea...@waitrose.com>  wrote:
>> On 14/03/2010 13:58,spinoza1111wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 14, 4:30 pm, Richard Heathfield<r...@see.sig.invalid>    wrote:
>>>> 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.

> 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:

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

> 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

and a Bill of Rights modelled on the 1689 version.

> quite unlike the British
> constitution, at best a ghost in an old play.

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?

> The "Glorious Revolution", mate, withdrew most privileges to
> university education and position from Catholics. Those rights were
> not returned until 1830.

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.

> Under Parliamentary sovereignty, 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

-- 
Tim

"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

On Mar 15, 10:57=A0am, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> 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.

spinoza1111 wrote:

Cut


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

Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> writes:
> 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?)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Squeamizh <squeamz@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 15, 10:57=A0am, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> > 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? 

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

On 2010-03-15, Richard Bos <raltbos@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 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.  :P

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Mar 16, 1:57=A0am, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> On 15/03/2010 12:08,spinoza1111wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 3:22 am, Tim Streater<timstrea...@waitrose.com> =A0wrote:
> >> On 14/03/2010 13:58,spinoza1111wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 14, 4:30 pm, Richard Heathfield<r...@see.sig.invalid> =A0 =A0w=
rote:
> >>>> 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, an=
d
> >>> 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
>
> > 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:
>
> 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.


>
> > 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
>
> 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.
>
> > quite unlike the British
> > constitution, at best a ghost in an old play.
>
> 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.

>
> > The "Glorious Revolution", mate, withdrew most privileges to
> > university education and position from Catholics. Those rights were
> > not returned until 1830.
>
> 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/
>
> > Under Parliamentary sovereignty, 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.


>
> --
> Tim
>
> "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

On Mar 16, 7:12=A0am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-03-15, Richard Bos <ralt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > 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. =A0However:
>
> 1. =A0I'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. =A0Even 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. =A0He 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. =A0People can read my code and make their own decisions
> about its quality. =A0:P

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.

>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. =A0Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@see=
bs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny picturesht=
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Mar 16, 5:07=A0am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnll> writes:
> >spinoza1111wrote:
>
> > 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

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.

> the 2616th complaint will make him see reason and reform his
> trollish ways. =A0(For those who don't recognize it, that was sarcasm.)
>
> I realized some time ago that complaining tospinoza1111is a
> waste of time and bandwidth. =A0I'm now coming to the conclusion that
> complaining to the people who continue to provoke him is equally
> a waste. =A0(Yeah, I know, what took me so long?)
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org =A0<http://www.ghoti.net/~=
kst>
> Nokia
> "We must do something. =A0This is something. =A0Therefore, we must do thi=
s."
> =A0 =A0 -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On 15 Mar, 19:45, Squeamizh <sque...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 10:57=A0am, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> > 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? =A0There 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.

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 :


On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:40:05 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.


On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:33:54 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is to me an amusing paradox that I'm the best C programmer in this
>newsgroup while not really knowing dick about C.


On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:22:59 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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. 

On 2010-03-21, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Harlan@kfc.com> wrote:
> 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 :

> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:40:05 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
><spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>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.

.... 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
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Mar 22, 3:19=A0am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-03-21, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Har...@kfc.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 =A0of this :
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:40:05 -0700 (PDT),spinoza1111
> ><spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>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.
>
> ... wow, that is beautiful.
>
> I'm pretty sure I can sort of trace the heritage of that one. =A0He's tak=
en
> 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 sen=
se
> as accusing Doug Gwyn of "paying his way" onto the standards committee (v=
ia
> his employer, presumably). =A0And therefore, I "paid my way" into my curr=
ent
> 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. =A0I'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. =A0I'=
m
> here because I love working with and talking about C, and because it's
> fun. =A0Back 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 wa=
y
> of thinking about C that has made the language a joy to work with for the
> last twenty years or so. =A0I figure I owe the newbie programmers of the =
world
> an occasional tip. =A0(... Oh, who am I kidding. =A0I still learn more th=
an 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 fuck up.

>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. =A0Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@see=
bs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny picturesht=
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Mar 22, 3:19=A0am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-03-21, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Har...@kfc.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 =A0of this :
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:40:05 -0700 (PDT),spinoza1111
> ><spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>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.
>
> ... wow, that is beautiful.
>
> I'm pretty sure I can sort of trace the heritage of that one. =A0He's tak=
en
> 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 sen=
se
> as accusing Doug Gwyn of "paying his way" onto the standards committee (v=
ia
> his employer, presumably). =A0And therefore, I "paid my way" into my curr=
ent
> 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.
>
> I have no clue about the backstabbing remark. =A0I'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. =A0I'=
m
> here because I love working with and talking about C, and because it's
> fun. =A0Back 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 wa=
y
> of thinking about C that has made the language a joy to work with for the
> last twenty years or so. =A0I figure I owe the newbie programmers of the =
world
> an occasional tip. =A0(... Oh, who am I kidding. =A0I still learn more th=
an I
> teach.)
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. =A0Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@see=
bs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny picturesht=
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

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.


On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:10:27 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You're an idiot, Bacarisse. To relax on a 30 minute ferry ride, I get
>my notebook out and spend a little time documenting and then writing
>code that even with bugs is better than any of the crap posted here.
>You find a typo but now that you've been infantilized and deskilled

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:06:07 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>lies. I was trying to CREDIT you, asshole, in a public newsgroup where
>credit and discredit is seen by current and potential employers and
>clients.
>
>The main trouble with many of you is that you literally think that
>hardware and stupid ideas from the past are more important than
>decency, self-respect and personal reputation.


On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:28:16 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ben is a knowledgeable contributor to this newsgroup, and most polite
>> with it. You, like Richard Bos, would do well to try to emulate him
>> rather than insult him.
>
>I'm not "insulting" him. Merely using strong language in response to
>what appeared at the time to be offensive is not "insulting" a person.

On Mar 22, 8:26=A0pm, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Har...@kfc.com> wrote:
> 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 =A0a measured response
> in his eyes.
> Evidently not only is Nilges' dialect of C unique, so is his English.
>
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:10:27 -0700 (PDT),spinoza1111
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >You're an idiot, Bacarisse. To relax on a 30 minute ferry ride, I get
> >my notebook out and spend a little time documenting and then writing
> >code that even with bugs is better than any of the crap posted here.
> >You find a typo but now that you've been infantilized and deskilled

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".

>
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:06:07 -0700 (PDT),spinoza1111
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >lies. I was trying to CREDIT you, asshole, in a public newsgroup where
> >credit and discredit is seen by current and potential employers and
> >clients.

Yes, asshole, I was trying to credit him.
>
> >The main trouble with many of you is that you literally think that
> >hardware and stupid ideas from the past are more important than
> >decency, self-respect and personal reputation.
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:28:16 -0700 (PDT),spinoza1111
>
>
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Ben is a knowledgeable contributor to this newsgroup, and most polite
> >> with it. You, like Richard Bos, would do well to try to emulate him
> >> rather than insult him.
>
> >I'm not "insulting" him. Merely using strong language in response to
> >what appeared at the time to be offensive is not "insulting" a person.

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.

Another empty legal threat:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:55:01 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 10, 3:11�am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>>�I think I'm done with this stuff, unless someone has
>> something really interesting to bring up.
>
>How about one sweet hell of a lawsuit in civil libel for a malicious
>attack on a private person containing falsehood?


Pretty hilarious, since 1) Nilges has promised lawsuits hundreds of
times and never carried through, 2) Nilges fills his posts with
clearly libelous statements against any and all comers all day, every
day, and 3), since presumably he is referring to reviews of Herb
Schildt's books, he has no, even notional, right to bring suit.

One feels tempted to notify Schildt of what this lunatic is doing in
his name. That might provoke a lawsuit, though not the kind Nilges
fantasises about.

On 2010-04-10, Colonel Harlan Sanders <Harlan@kfc.com> wrote:
> Another empty legal threat:

*sigh*

> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:55:01 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
><spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Apr 10, 3:11�am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>>>�I think I'm done with this stuff, unless someone has
>>> something really interesting to bring up.

>>How about one sweet hell of a lawsuit in civil libel for a malicious
>>attack on a private person containing falsehood?

That would indeed be interesting.  Indeed, hilarious.

I've had my lawyer review some of the posts Nilges has made
recently (not paying him for this; I sucked him in by telling him
there was something really funny on the internet), and he has
assured me that it would be a great deal of fun to have some
kind of suit involving Nilges.  I am inclined to agree; this
sounds like it would lead to epically funny transcripts.

However, I don't see the lawsuit threat as a *new* thing, since
he's been making them for some time.  Also, I think he promised
Richard Heathfield the first dance.  :P

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!