In the matter of Herb Schildt: article renamed

[spinoza1111]

The "Herb Schildt" article has been renamed in a pretty sleazy move,
since it's still materially a biography and still in material
violation of BLP. This was due to the actions of a few brave
individuals. Post your comments supporting the rename, and the removal
of all biographical information that is not about his writing. Note
that despite the fact that it was I who protected Wikipedia by
alerting W to the BLP violation, I am being continually censored and
vandalized by the Lanier-troll, thug and bully Barsoomian. This is
while actionably libelous comments by Peter Seebach are allowed to
stand;

Seebach will be in need of a lawyer if this shit continues here or on
wikipedia. He has no way of proving in a court of law or before an
arbitration committee that I am a "pathological narcissist". However,
I can certainly prove that he has no education in computer science and
is an incompetent programmer.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

Seebach will be in need of a lawyer if this shit continues here or on
wikipedia

No he won't.

He has no way of proving in a court of law or before an
arbitration committee that I am a "pathological narcissist".

Yes he does.

But really, you've libelled Seebach a dozen times a day here for the
last six months. You've threatened him or others with prosecution for
various offences against your dignity every week or so, back into the
prehistory of Usenet.
That you imagine that anyone could take you seriously after that
proves that you are in fact a pathological narcissist.

Case closed.

 

[Seebs]

No he won't.

And even if I did, I *have* a lawyer, who has already reviewed this stuff,
and who would probably be willing to take a case on contingency, on the
grounds that it would provide sufficient lulz to provide all the war stories
that one could ever need to exchange with other lawyers.

But really, you've libelled Seebach a dozen times a day here for the
last six months.

Only a dozen? He must be easing up.

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

 No he won't.


Yes he does.

But really, you've libelled Seebach a dozen times a day here for the
last six months. You've threatened him or others with prosecution for
various offences against your dignity every week or so, back into the
prehistory of Usenet.

To "threaten with prosecution" is not libel. Libel is making false and
malicious claims, or revealing secrets about another. I am not making
a false claim when I claim that Peter Seebach is an incompetent
programmer with no standing libeling Schildt, since he has repeatedly
provided evidence on this newsgroup that he is. Furthermore, after
failing to post a correct solution to a very simple problem (strlen)
Seebach confessed that he isn't good at "this". He has also repeatedly
confirmed that he has no academic preparation in CS.

On the other hand, Seebach has called me a "kook", a "moron", and a
"pathological narcissist" with no evidence whatsoever. This is libel.

 

[spinoza1111]

And even if I did, I *have* a lawyer, who has already reviewed this stuff,
and who would probably be willing to take a case on contingency, on the
grounds that it would provide sufficient lulz to provide all the war stories
that one could ever need to exchange with other lawyers.

This is a threat. I look forward to responding to any lawsuit you care
to file, Peter.

 

[Seebs]

No, he isn't threatening you. He's saying that, in the vanishingly
improbable eventuality that *you* actually try to sue *him*, he's ready
for you. But he knows that won't happen, and so do we, and so do you.

I would not have thought this needed to be clarified. It really was pretty
clear -- Nilges was threatening to sue me, I pointed out that this would
amuse me greatly and not significantly inconvenience me.

Of course I am not planning to sue Nilges. There's nothing for me to
sue for -- there is no way any judge would ever be convinced that anyone
would have taken the various libels by Nilges seriously, which means
there's no damages. I suppose in theory I could try to get an injunction,
but why would I waste a court's time trying to make Nilges behave? It
can't be done, and I think doing so would deprive the Internet of a great
source of humor. I just wish he'd bring his stupid posturing somewhere
where I could respond.

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

I would not have thought this needed to be clarified.  It really was pretty
clear -- Nilges was threatening to sue me, I pointed out that this would
amuse me greatly and not significantly inconvenience me.

If you were a grownup, you'd know that "threats to sue" are used often
to invite to arbitrate at some lower level. For example, I asked you
months ago to take our discussions offline and you refused like the
frightened child you increasingly seem to be.

I have escalated this matter. I started to use "foul language" to draw
your and other readers' attention that it's worse to destroy a
person's reputation than to invite another person to get fucked.

I contacted John Markoff of the New York Times to pitch this story
which I now fear includes for completeness and veracity the full story
of your professional incompetence. I received a polite reply in which
Markoff declined to follow up but confirmed that he has had his own
issues with his wikipedia biography.

I submitted a post describing this issue to Peter Neumann, the
competent moderator of the ACM Forum on Risks to the Public, and he
has accepted it. It now appears at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.06.html#subj12,
and shall shortly appear at the digest on Google Groups, where you may
comment on it; however, your response will be moderated and Peter
Neumann will, I predict, protect you from the consequences of your own
foolishness by not permitting libel as opposed to the verifiable facts
of your competence.

My actions as a "banned" wikipedia editor have gotten the Herbert
Schildt article removed as a biography of Schildt; it has been
relabeled "Writings of Herbert Schildt" in the (vain) hope that this
will indemnify it, as far as the law is concerned, from being a
violation of BLP.

Of course I am not planning to sue Nilges.  There's nothing for me to
sue for --

You got that right. There's something to be said for living simply.

there is no way any judge would ever be convinced that anyone
would have taken the various libels by Nilges seriously, which means

Actually, your inability to code a string replace of %p, your
inability to code a strlen(), your inability to structure your use of
switch(), your sloppiness in declaring a preprocessor variable and
then not using it, is all a matter of permanent record. Your lack of
any academic qualifications is also verifiable. Your ignorance of the
use of the stack to explain runtime is on record.

 

[spinoza1111]

Truth is an absolute response, and your posts on c.l.c provide ample
evidence.

They wouldn't constitute this to a lawyer, because lawyers read at a
higher level than mere computer programmers. Lawyers are able to
disambiguate rants from essays.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

To "threaten with prosecution" is not libel.

No, well spotted, I never said they were. But the hundreds of threats
to prosecute you've made are evidence of your narcissism. Since only
someone blinded to how pathetic this makes him appear could continue
to make these empty threats.

Libel is making false and
malicious claims

Which you do on a daily basis.

On the other hand, Seebach has called me a "kook", a "moron", and a
"pathological narcissist" with no evidence whatsoever

Except your behaviour.

 

[James Harris]

....

My actions as a "banned" wikipedia editor have gotten the Herbert
Schildt article removed as a biography of Schildt; it has been
relabeled "Writings of Herbert Schildt" in the (vain) hope that this
will indemnify it, as far as the law is concerned, from being a
violation of BLP.

A half-truth perhaps? You failed to say that the page was renamed
unilaterally by one user and was subject to a proposal and vote to
move it back....

James

 

[Seebs]

A half-truth perhaps? You failed to say that the page was renamed
unilaterally by one user and was subject to a proposal and vote to
move it back....

Which has now been done, because the page is in fact about the person
(including his participation in a rock group), not mostly about his
writings. So it's back to being a (small) biography, with detailed
annotations and no actual violation of BLP. (Which would, in any
event, not apply to an article which predated that policy.)

This tireless crusade has also gotten the updated C:TCN a bunch of coverage
via reddit, so I guess that's working.

-s