This is a quote from Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living
Persons:

"Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough
for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise
restraint and include only material relevant to their notability,
focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the
subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may
adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special
care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and
there is additional protection for people who are not public figures."

*  Herb Schildt is "not generally well known"

*  Owing to my first BLP complaint, in early 2009, the critical
material currently in the Reception section exercises restraint, but
the first and most important reference, CTCN-4 by Seebach.

*  Neither CTCN-3 nor CTCN-4 are high quality sources. They contain
errors including illiterate constructions such as "clear" to mean
"clear and false". They also claim that all C main programs must have
the syntax required only in what the Standard calls a Hosted program,
which is an error. Neither would pass a technical edit.

*  CTCN-3 has adversely affected Herb's reputation for 15 years and
was the reason the wikipedia artice was created; between 2006 and
2009, this article was completely NPOV and very disturbing.

*  The claims made in the Reception section and in the referenced
CTCN-4 are defamatory under the law even if true in part. This is
because Herb is a private individual who is accused in the article of
serious malpractice when, in fact, he worked collegially with McGraw-
Hill technical reviewers (who are also defamed in this drive-by
shooting).

Why are the claims defamatory? Because they are used to "prove" that
Herb didn't know C and chose to write about it anyway. This is based
on code examples/snippets which in no typical computer book work in
all environments without change in some, and which is to be used after
the reader has comprehended their use.

It is clear that McGraw Hill did not choose, in Herb, a world-class
expert on the C programming language. Instead they chose a person who
Seebach admits by misusing "clear" is a good writer.

When most computer books and large programs are delivered under the
law with hundreds or thousands of bugs, it is defamatory to single
Herb Schildt out, and it is scapegoating him for the incompetence
found elsewhere. Seebach has exposed wikipedia to the potential for
serious financial loss and should be banned from wikipedia for that
reason.

"spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:40e7b2f8-b917-4443-b442-871630bea962@11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> This is a quote from Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living
> Persons:
>
> "Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough
> for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise
> restraint and include only material relevant to their notability,
> focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the
> subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may
> adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special
> care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and
> there is additional protection for people who are not public figures."
>
> *  Herb Schildt is "not generally well known"
>
> *  Owing to my first BLP complaint, in early 2009, the critical
> material currently in the Reception section exercises restraint, but
> the first and most important reference, CTCN-4 by Seebach.
>
> *  Neither CTCN-3 nor CTCN-4 are high quality sources. They contain
> errors including illiterate constructions such as "clear" to mean
> "clear and false". They also claim that all C main programs must have
> the syntax required only in what the Standard calls a Hosted program,
> which is an error. Neither would pass a technical edit.
>
> *  CTCN-3 has adversely affected Herb's reputation for 15 years and
> was the reason the wikipedia artice was created; between 2006 and
> 2009, this article was completely NPOV and very disturbing.
>
> *  The claims made in the Reception section and in the referenced
> CTCN-4 are defamatory under the law even if true in part. This is
> because Herb is a private individual who is accused in the article of
> serious malpractice when, in fact, he worked collegially with McGraw-
> Hill technical reviewers (who are also defamed in this drive-by
> shooting).
>
> Why are the claims defamatory? Because they are used to "prove" that
> Herb didn't know C and chose to write about it anyway. This is based
> on code examples/snippets which in no typical computer book work in
> all environments without change in some, and which is to be used after
> the reader has comprehended their use.
>
> It is clear that McGraw Hill did not choose, in Herb, a world-class
> expert on the C programming language. Instead they chose a person who
> Seebach admits by misusing "clear" is a good writer.
>
> When most computer books and large programs are delivered under the
> law with hundreds or thousands of bugs, it is defamatory to single
> Herb Schildt out, and it is scapegoating him for the incompetence
> found elsewhere. Seebach has exposed wikipedia to the potential for
> serious financial loss and should be banned from wikipedia for that
> reason.

Geez, Ed! Give it a rest, willya?

You're becoming tedious.
 

On 2010-04-13, Bruce C. Baker <bcbaker00@cox.net> wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:40e7b2f8-b917-4443-b442-871630bea962@11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>> Instead they chose a person who
>> Seebach admits by misusing "clear" is a good writer.

> Geez, Ed! Give it a rest, willya?

> You're becoming tedious.

Anyway, I already admitted I was wrong about believing Schildt to be
a good writer -- on closer study, the writing is bad 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!

"Bruce C. Baker" <bcbaker00@cox.net> writes:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40e7b2f8-b917-4443-b442-871630bea962@11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
[51 lines deleted]
>
> Geez, Ed! Give it a rest, willya?
>
> You're becoming tedious.

So why did you feel the need to quote his entire article just to add 2
lines of comments?

Please don't feed the troll.

-- 
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 Apr 13, 9:58=A0am, "Bruce C. Baker" <bcbake...@cox.net> wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:40e7b2f8-b917-4443-b442-871630bea962@11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is a quote from Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living
> > Persons:
>
> > "Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough
> > for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise
> > restraint and include only material relevant to their notability,
> > focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the
> > subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may
> > adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special
> > care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and
> > there is additional protection for people who are not public figures."
>
> > * =A0Herb Schildt is "not generally well known"
>
> > * =A0Owing to my first BLP complaint, in early 2009, the critical
> > material currently in the Reception section exercises restraint, but
> > the first and most important reference, CTCN-4 by Seebach.
>
> > * =A0Neither CTCN-3 nor CTCN-4 are high quality sources. They contain
> > errors including illiterate constructions such as "clear" to mean
> > "clear and false". They also claim that all C main programs must have
> > the syntax required only in what the Standard calls a Hosted program,
> > which is an error. Neither would pass a technical edit.
>
> > * =A0CTCN-3 has adversely affected Herb's reputation for 15 years and
> > was the reason the wikipedia artice was created; between 2006 and
> > 2009, this article was completely NPOV and very disturbing.
>
> > * =A0The claims made in the Reception section and in the referenced
> > CTCN-4 are defamatory under the law even if true in part. This is
> > because Herb is a private individual who is accused in the article of
> > serious malpractice when, in fact, he worked collegially with McGraw-
> > Hill technical reviewers (who are also defamed in this drive-by
> > shooting).
>
> > Why are the claims defamatory? Because they are used to "prove" that
> > Herb didn't know C and chose to write about it anyway. This is based
> > on code examples/snippets which in no typical computer book work in
> > all environments without change in some, and which is to be used after
> > the reader has comprehended their use.
>
> > It is clear that McGraw Hill did not choose, in Herb, a world-class
> > expert on the C programming language. Instead they chose a person who
> > Seebach admits by misusing "clear" is a good writer.
>
> > When most computer books and large programs are delivered under the
> > law with hundreds or thousands of bugs, it is defamatory to single
> > Herb Schildt out, and it is scapegoating him for the incompetence
> > found elsewhere. Seebach has exposed wikipedia to the potential for
> > serious financial loss and should be banned from wikipedia for that
> > reason.
>
> Geez, Ed! Give it a rest, willya?
>
> You're becoming tedious.

No, what's tedious is the stupidity and hostility encountered by
anyone who comes in here with a few brain cells.

This issue ain't going away.

On Apr 13, 12:14=A0pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> "Bruce C. Baker" <bcbake...@cox.net> writes:
>
> > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:40e7b2f8-b917-4443-b442-871630bea962@11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> [51 lines deleted]
>
> > Geez, Ed! Give it a rest, willya?
>
> > You're becoming tedious.
>
> So why did you feel the need to quote his entire article just to add 2
> lines of comments?
>
> Please don't feed the troll.

A "generalized Lanier troll" is anyone (anonymous or not) who doesn't
performatively take responsibility for his beliefs. That is, Keith
Thompson as a GLT seems to spend most of his time at work running
around admonishing people to ignore me. Not only is this electronic
stalking on his part, it's also idiotic.
>
> --
> 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 Apr 13, 10:01=A0am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-04-13, Bruce C. Baker <bcbake...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:40e7b2f8-b917-4443-b442-871630bea962@11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> >> Instead they chose a person who
> >> Seebach admits by misusing "clear" is a good writer.
> > Geez, Ed! Give it a rest, willya?
> > You're becoming tedious.
>
> Anyway, I already admitted I was wrong about believing Schildt to be
> a good writer -- on closer study, the writing is bad too.

You're entitled to your own opinion, and we can ignore your views on
fine writing based on your use of "clear" and "illucid".

However, you probably committed an actionable tortious negligence when
you allowed CTCN-3 to be a source for a libelous page on wikipedia.
>
> -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!

"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message 
news:ln8w8srnu1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
> "Bruce C. Baker" <bcbaker00@cox.net> writes:
>> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:40e7b2f8-b917-4443-b442-871630bea962@11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> [51 lines deleted]
>>
>> Geez, Ed! Give it a rest, willya?
>>
>> You're becoming tedious.
>
> So why did you feel the need to quote his entire article just to add 2
> lines of comments?
>
> Please don't feed the troll.

Because exposure to Nilgewater has come to have the same debilitating effect 
on me that Kryptonite has on Superman? :-D