Personal attacks by moderators in a moderated group areunprofessional

[spinoza1111]

Nilges has in the past suggested that Schildt approves, though I have
no idea how much weight to place on that.


I suspect that people do indeed read them sometimes -- I myself had
been underestimating how famous Nilges was among people who have been
reading Usenet for a long time.  However, I think the chances of anyone
*taking them seriously* are indeed vanishingly small.

Peter, as a result of mere posting on usenet, I was invited to
participate at a Princeton University Press online discussion, I was
invited to contribute to the essay track at the 2005 ACM meeting, and
I was hired at at least one job. I did not in the end contribute to
the essay track owing to lack of funds to travel.

There is an urban legend that I'm "crazy". Recently, at work, a
manager posted a surreptitious photograph on a public blog of a
coworker with a very demeaning comment, and I complained to her
manager. Her defense was that I'd been "thrown out" of a local
placeblog; I'd not been, I'd left in disgust at the behavior of other
moderators besides myself (who was a moderator). The result? She was
disciplined and company rules about this behavior were clarified.

In these Internet "crusades", I've learned to define goals to at least
try to avoid wasting my time on going back and forth here. My goal
here is simple. You need to remove "C: the Complete Nonsense" and post
an apology.

 

[spinoza1111]

*I* think you should butt out of their business. It's not your place
to provide unsolicited "self-defense" for others, and I strongly doubt
Schildt would approve of how you're doing it. Fortunately, he has no
need to worry about your dragging his good name through the mud by
bringing up old embarrassments. The chances of anyone who might
escalate the damage reading your posts (and blogs) are vanishingly
small.

In ways that shall remain confidential, I did check, after getting the
wikipedia biography to conform to wikipedia's "biographies of living
persons" policies, whether interested parties on the other side of
this issue cared either way about my participation. I received their
approval. It's none of YOUR business how this was done, but as long
ago as early 2009, I was concerned about re-opening old wounds and I
took steps accordingly.

Today, I sent an email to those parties reaffirming that if any time
they would like me to desist, I will do so.

I've already addressed this issue, several times, and at this point,
you're nothing more than a cybernetic mob member, and a bitch,
screaming imprecations at the Chosen One.

 

[Ian Collins]

I will state for the record that I have no interest at all in trying
to "destroy" Nilges, or undermine his credibility, or anything else.

What credibility?

 

[Qwertyioup]

There is an urban legend that I'm "crazy". Recently, at work, a
manager posted a surreptitious photograph on a public blog of a
coworker with a very demeaning comment, and I complained to her
manager. Her defense was that I'd been "thrown out" of a local
placeblog; I'd not been, I'd left in disgust at the behavior of other
moderators besides myself (who was a moderator). The result? She was
disciplined and company rules about this behavior were clarified.

Just for the record, you certainly WERE thrown out of the Lamma forum.
You may have threatened to leave, as you periodically do in this and
every other forum or newsgroup, but as always you expected to come
back a few days later and continue as if nothing had happened. But
though you asked over and over to be allowed back, you were refused.

I assume that you were telling people the fairy tale version, as you
outline above, and they checked up, as the posts are still online,
and found you were lying.

I've looked at your blog, by the way.
Sad how not only your ex-wife, but your sons and you sister all refuse
to have anything to do with you because of your behaviour. Of course
you've learned nothing; still sure that everyone else is wrong and
conspiring against you.

So someone made a "demeaning comment" at work and instead of working
it out you escalated that and got her in trouble. Well done. No doubt
in a short time you'll be railing about the fascists at your current
workplace who forced you out for "telling the truth to power" or
whatever self-aggrandising bullshit you make up to explain that you
were let go for being a complete asshole. Because it is clear that
you can't function in any work, family or social group unless everyone
defers to you.

Well, it's been great to catch up with you. Maybe I'll be back in a
few months or next year to see you explain how you "left your job in
disgust at your colleagues' behaviour".

 

[Seebs]

What credibility?

Well, yeah. One of the reasons I am not trying to undermine his credibility
is that even if I wanted to, I'm not sure at all that it would be
theoretically possible.

-s

 

[Dr Malcolm McLean]

[Qwertyioup]
is wrong not offer one escape way, one chance
i say: to live and let to live (expecially people that
are in trouble)

I agree.
Stick to criticisms of Spinoza1111's views on C programming. There's
no point bringing up other, off-topic issues that none of us here can
possibly be in a position judge.

 

[Seebs]

Stick to criticisms of Spinoza1111's views on C programming. There's
no point bringing up other, off-topic issues that none of us here can
possibly be in a position judge.

Normally, I agree, but in the case of someone with a long history of
disruption and general internet kookery, legal threats, etcetera, it
can be important to warn people about the side issues -- many people
would rather not engage someone with a history of going to employers
with defamatory claims about people he's argued with on the internet,
for instance. Similarly, knowing that someone's been impenetrably stupid
about something for a decade changes, for most people, the expected return
on time spent trying to educate that person.

-s

 

[Moi]

Normally, I agree, but in the case of someone with a long history of
disruption and general internet kookery, legal threats, etcetera, it can
be important to warn people about the side issues -- many people would
rather not engage someone with a history of going to employers with
defamatory claims about people he's argued with on the internet, for
instance. Similarly, knowing that someone's been impenetrably stupid
about something for a decade changes, for most people, the expected
return on time spent trying to educate that person.

Remember that it is basically just you and Richard who take the bait.
Effectively lowering the S/N ratio to under 50%.
Just don't react. It's easy. Ignore it. The amusement value is close to zero
(maybe except for you) and the net effect is hem succeeding in his goal to
destroy this NG, whatever that may be.

AvK

 

[Julienne Walker]

In ways that shall remain confidential, I did check, after getting the
wikipedia biography to conform to wikipedia's "biographies of living
persons" policies, whether interested parties on the other side of
this issue cared either way about my participation. I received their
approval.

Bullshit. I can see it one of two ways:

1) You're a liar and received no such approval. I see this as likely
because you're prone to throw around names as a way to make yourself
seem more credible.

2) You received positive feedback for the Wikipedia edits and took
that to mean approval for ALL of your vindictive escapades.

I'd love to see what Schildt thinks of how you've been championing him
here on clc. Were I him, I'd rush to send you a cease and desist email.

 

[Seebs]

Remember that it is basically just you and Richard who take the bait.

I don't think I agree with that -- we may be two of the people most
likely to respond (although I think I've responded to Nilges maybe once
in the last few months), but there are an awful lot of individual
responses.

That said, I am sort of amazed; I recently dekillfiled him just to see
whether he was responsible for the huge gap between articles in group
and unkillfiled articles in group. He is. I have never seen such a
volume of posts. I'm amazed.

But none of them seem to have any semantic content worth noticing, so
I guess that experiment is over.

-s

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Speak for yourself. I find the amusement value rather high.

Here speakes a true troll
Back to your stone bridge please.

 

[Qwertyioup]

[Qwertyioup]
is wrong not offer one escape way, one chance
i say: to live and let to live (expecially people that
are in trouble)

I agree.
Stick to criticisms of Spinoza1111's views on C programming. There's
no point bringing up other, off-topic issues that none of us here can
possibly be in a position judge.

Well, yes. But how about you address that suggestion to Nilges?

He's the one who keep introducing personal attacks into every topic.
He's got a library of charges against enemies from his past that he
throws into posts all the time. I realise that it's hopeless to expect
him to stop or respond to any request to prove his assertions, but
every now and then I may put a notice on record that his version of
events is disputed.

Though what do you really expect to see in a topic titled
"Personal attacks by moderators in a moderated group are
unprofessional" but personal smears and flames?

Anyway, with that made clear I hope, I will try to restrain myself
from further pig wrestling.

 

[James Harris]

Just for the record, you certainly WERE thrown out of the Lamma forum.
You may have threatened to leave, as you periodically do in this and
every other forum or newsgroup, but as always you expected to come
back a few days later and continue as if nothing had happened. But
though you asked over and over to be allowed back, you were refused.

Thanks for posting this. As others have said I'm not sure we can
directly corroborate the account but your comments are very much in
accord with the personality Edward Nilges shows in his posts so I find
what you have said eminently believable.

As well as the Lamma forum, whatever that is, unless there was another
user with the same name he seems to have suffered the same fate on
Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinoza1111

In his mind no doubt he chose to leave that too.

I assume that you were telling people the fairy tale version, as you
outline above, and they checked up, as the posts are still online,
and found you were lying.

I've looked at your blog, by the way.
Sad how not only your ex-wife, but your sons and you sister all refuse
to have anything to do with you because of your behaviour. Of course
you've learned nothing; still sure that everyone else is wrong and

He does indeed show signs of paranoia.

So someone made a "demeaning comment" at work and instead of working
it out you escalated that and got her in trouble. Well done.

Yep, he seems to fly into a rage at criticism. Not the smartest idea
on Usenet, eh. Getting someone into trouble is clearly his intention
here. He railed for a while at harming Richard Heathfield and now he's
trying it with Peter Seebach. So, again, your assertion that he
escalated a complaint until he got her into trouble is totally
believable.

Edward Nilges reminds me a bit of Heather Mills (the woman that
married Paul McCartney). She was able to look people in the eye and
tell a story like she really believed it but her life was subsequently
revealed as heavily based on fantasy rather than reality. Mr Nilges
seems to have similar issues.

James

 

[BruceS]

Speak for yourself.  I find the amusement value rather high.

Gotta side with Mr. Harter on this. Seebs, with his claimed
education, should know better than to keep tripping up such a severely
disabled person, but it's still a (somewhat guilty) amusement to watch
the poor sad loser keep falling in the mud. If I weren't amused, I'd
simply skip any post by the loon and any reply to same.
Shame on you, Seebs.
Hey, I didn't say stop!

 

[Seebs]

Gotta side with Mr. Harter on this. Seebs, with his claimed
education, should know better than to keep tripping up such a severely
disabled person, but it's still a (somewhat guilty) amusement to watch
the poor sad loser keep falling in the mud. If I weren't amused, I'd
simply skip any post by the loon and any reply to same.
Shame on you, Seebs.
Hey, I didn't say stop!

The last time I poked at his insanity on purpose was waving the word
"autistic" in front of him to see what he'd do. Since then, I've just been
trying to occasionally correct some of the more egregious mishaps and
misrepresentations.

Not that this helps. He complained about me allegedly padding my resume;
I sent a link to the joke resume I wrote up in response to people claiming
that everyone has to pad their resume. He responded by apparently thinking
that:

1. I have actually offered that resume as being in some way real, rather
than a parody based on carefully-chosen literal truths which are funny in
context.
2. There exist sane people who would ever mistake it for a real resume.

(The qualifier is needed because at least one other person did, apparently,
mistake it for a real resume, but that person's internet search skills were
so stunningly bad as to really leave me unsurprised. You can't fix stupid.)

I think the problem is that I have not yet developed a sufficiently
pessimistic model of the reading comprehension available to Nilges. As
a result, I make mistakes like pointing out a joke in the expectation
that he will comprehend that a joke is usually not considered to be a serious
representation. If he couldn't see why the "Apple Computer" thing listed
on my parody resume is a joke, there's not much I can do to help him.

-s

 

[BruceS]

The last time I poked at his insanity on purpose was waving the word
"autistic" in front of him to see what he'd do.  Since then, I've just been
trying to occasionally correct some of the more egregious mishaps and
misrepresentations.

The last time you poked at his insanity was most likely your most
recent post. After a few such accidental pokes, the pattern should
start becoming clear.

Not that this helps.  He complained about me allegedly padding my resume;
I sent a link to the joke resume I wrote up in response to people claiming
that everyone has to pad their resume.  He responded by apparently thinking
that:

1.  I have actually offered that resume as being in some way real, rather
than a parody based on carefully-chosen literal truths which are funny in
context.
2.  There exist sane people who would ever mistake it for a real resume..

(The qualifier is needed because at least one other person did, apparently,
mistake it for a real resume, but that person's internet search skills were
so stunningly bad as to really leave me unsurprised.  You can't fix stupid.)

Not since they changed the laws.

I think the problem is that I have not yet developed a sufficiently
pessimistic model of the reading comprehension available to Nilges.  As
a result, I make mistakes like pointing out a joke in the expectation
that he will comprehend that a joke is usually not considered to be a serious
representation.  If he couldn't see why the "Apple Computer" thing listed
on my parody resume is a joke, there's not much I can do to help him.

Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive. He has appears to have reached a
point where he's stumbling over the least thing. The resume is
actually a pretty good example. I think that, at this point, anything
you post either in reply to or in reference to him would be fodder for
an intellectual pratfall. As I said, I'm not asking you to stop,
since I'm among the bad bad people who keep laughing. For a while I
tried to see the reason among the rant, but I've given up. He is fast
becoming a worse parody of himself than you (or I) could construct.

When I first saw your mention of your education, I wondered whether
you were prodding him a bit to figure out exactly what his defect is.
ISTM that's a bit of a hobby in that field. You've since given what I
would consider a dx, but clearly a partial one. It's not my field, so
I'll keep my guesses to myself.

 

[Seebs]

The last time you poked at his insanity was most likely your most
recent post. After a few such accidental pokes, the pattern should
start becoming clear.

I distinguish between "things done in order to poke at Nilges" and "things
done for other reasons, despite the fact that they may also have the side
effect of poking at Nilges".

When I first saw your mention of your education, I wondered whether
you were prodding him a bit to figure out exactly what his defect is.
ISTM that's a bit of a hobby in that field. You've since given what I
would consider a dx, but clearly a partial one. It's not my field, so
I'll keep my guesses to myself.

I wasn't really thinking about it. He accused us all of having "APd out
of CS 101". This struck me as stupid in several ways:

1. I did, in fact, do an AP class -- calculus. I tested out of calc 1
and calc 2 in college, and quite rightly so; I knew the material better
than most of the people who took them. The implied premise that AP
classes that actually yield a college credit "don't count" is not
supported.
2. But I am definitely not an ivory-tower intellectual who learned about
programming entirely from an academic standpoint.

The totally unsupported allegation was, at the time, sort of a novelty --
I was not yet used to the way in which Nilges makes up things which, if they
were true, would make him feel important, and then asserts them without any
effort at fact-checking or any kind of support.

So I pointed out that it was wrong, because I'm a pedant at heart. I don't
really think it's a big deal either way; it amuses me that I ended up not
doing the academic course path, way back when, but it has no impact to speak
of on much of anything now.

Now, pointing out that I never finished high school, that may have been
poking at him. (And if so, I think it was more recent than the autism
remark.) That one's sort of a hobby for me; anyone who pays even a TINY
bit of attention will realize that it must be some kind of a trap, but
people who are in a big hurry to rush to condemn me for my alleged flaws
tend to misinterpret it. (And I believe Nilges did, in fact, go on to
claim that I "failed" high school -- a statement I have not made, for
the most obvious reason.)

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

The last time I poked at his insanity on purpose was waving the word
"autistic" in front of him to see what he'd do.  Since then, I've just been
trying to occasionally correct some of the more egregious mishaps and
misrepresentations.

Not that this helps.  He complained about me allegedly padding my resume;
I sent a link to the joke resume I wrote up in response to people claiming
that everyone has to pad their resume.  He responded by apparently thinking
that:

1.  I have actually offered that resume as being in some way real, rather
than a parody based on carefully-chosen literal truths which are funny in
context.
2.  There exist sane people who would ever mistake it for a real resume..

Actually, I believe you have used this as a real resume to get short-
term contracts from people who are too busy to read it all, and if you
think this is a shame, you are exceptionally vain. Your "real" resumes
are stunningly patronizing and I believe that if you lose your current
job, you will have to rewrite them to get a new job. I don't think
you'll find one, since your lack of academic qualifications is
stunning in view of your demand to work at home on high technology.

You can't win an argument, you have with a singular lack of grace or
decency admitted that you let a single poorly-drafted post ruin a
man's reputation for five years until I, as you concede, got on your
fucking ass, you use a word "illucid" which is the root of a verb
meaning the opposite of your plain meaning, you post buggy code all
the time, you have NO academic preparation in computer science, and
you can't moderate. OK, you can play foolish pranks and your employer
lets you work at home, quite possibly because your coworkers can't
stand you.

I am underwhelmed.

(The qualifier is needed because at least one other person did, apparently,
mistake it for a real resume, but that person's internet search skills were
so stunningly bad as to really leave me unsurprised.  You can't fix stupid.)

No, Peter, you are stupid. But I wouldn't care save for the fact that
you're also very evil. You've stalked a harmless author for fifteen
years and when you make many more foolish errors here such as posting
your silly off-by-one strlen and crossposting to other groups you
expect a charity which you do not extend to others.

If you persist in this psychotic behavior you may end up in prison. We
can send our compilers to India for testing.

I think the problem is that I have not yet developed a sufficiently
pessimistic model of the reading comprehension available to Nilges.  As
a result, I make mistakes like pointing out a joke in the expectation
that he will comprehend that a joke is usually not considered to be a serious
representation.  If he couldn't see why the "Apple Computer" thing listed
on my parody resume is a joke, there's not much I can do to help him.

No, you're a joke. Given your lies here, I naturally assumed that you
would present as an Apple employee and venture capitalist and accept a
job offer based on the hiring person's misunderstanding.

You're lying on your real resume. You did not single-handedly (or at
all) standardize C. Nor do you moderate comp.lang.c, by your own
admission.

 

[spinoza1111]

I distinguish between "things done in order to poke at Nilges" and "things
done for other reasons, despite the fact that they may also have the side
effect of poking at Nilges".

Replace "poking at" by "stalking and harassing", please, because
that's what you are doing, and it is becoming a police matter. This is
because I raised the issue of your stalking Herb properly and asked
you to get in touch with me by email so we could discuss my concerns
offline, and you responded with stalking and harassing behavior.

I wasn't really thinking about it.  He accused us all of having "APd out
of CS 101".  This struck me as stupid in several ways:

Excuse me, at this time, I don't think you could have passed the
examination. Is the "heap" still a DOS term?

1.  I did, in fact, do an AP class -- calculus.  I tested out of calc 1

(Sigh) I took calculus, too. It's a great prep for
programming...analog devices. A lot of demand out there...

  and calc 2 in college, and quite rightly so; I knew the material better
  than most of the people who took them.  The implied premise that AP
  classes that actually yield a college credit "don't count" is not
  supported.

I detect a pattern. You didn't want to go to class and you do not want
to go to work; you took AP tests and you demand in your resume to work
at home.

But reading your Mom's blog, I think I've found out why. I think you
flee "the encounter with the Other". Your Mom dislikes, viscerally,
the idea of being forced down the social scale to the extent of having
to teach or pay taxes for (not sure which) previously all-white
science classes being affirmatively integrated, because this would
make all too real to her the fact of downward, lower middle class
social mobility...just as the Tea Baggers are hopping mad at having an
African American president who is more literate, better educated both
formally and autodidactically, and better spoken than they or, even
more, their children...some of whom are hanging on to data processing
jobs and holding companies to ransom with shibboleth code, whilst
backstabbing their coworkers and stalking computer authors.

2.  But I am definitely not an ivory-tower intellectual who learned about
  programming entirely from an academic standpoint.

No, you're not. But you certainly think in some caricatured ivory
tower ways: you sure as hell can exclude the excluded middle. Since
when is it a choice between being a complete autodidact like you, who
fled the Other in the form of having to be in a class with students
who might (who probably would) laugh at you because of your vanity and
pretense, and being an "ivory tower intellectual who learned about
programming entirely from an academic standpoint"?

You do in fact live in a flimsy and self-built "ivory tower"
constituted by the temporary willingness of companies to put up with
your nonsense in return for finding bugs that wouldn't be present if
the original developers weren't near-slaves.

My Princeton friends went to school in an ivory tower. But those of
them who majored in computer science had to, as a senior project, do
what Wozniak did, that is, architect and construct a real computer and
write its OSen and compilers. I find no such accomplishment on your
resume and this looks really bad given the absence of any educational
preparation.

The totally unsupported allegation was, at the time, sort of a novelty --
I was not yet used to the way in which Nilges makes up things which, if they
were true, would make him feel important, and then asserts them without any
effort at fact-checking or any kind of support.

Whoa, dude. How does the fact that you AP'd out of calculus prove that
you have academic qualifications in computer science?

So I pointed out that it was wrong, because I'm a pedant at heart.  I don't
really think it's a big deal either way; it amuses me that I ended up not
doing the academic course path, way back when, but it has no impact to speak
of on much of anything now.

No, it does. You don't know how to write a structured program. You
can't get a one line strlen working without an off by one bug. You
thought and perhaps still think that "the 'heap' is a DOS term". You
think that "illucid" is a word. And more to the point, you think
stalking is "reasoned criticism".

Now, pointing out that I never finished high school, that may have been
poking at him.  (And if so, I think it was more recent than the autism
remark.)  That one's sort of a hobby for me; anyone who pays even a TINY
bit of attention will realize that it must be some kind of a trap, but
people who are in a big hurry to rush to condemn me for my alleged flaws
tend to misinterpret it.  (And I believe Nilges did, in fact, go on to
claim that I "failed" high school -- a statement I have not made, for
the most obvious reason.)

It is immaterial how and in what way you are lying now. Did you drop
out because of the minorities hassling you? I.don't.care. The point is
that the ground is giving way beneath your feet. We work six hours a
week in China. We go in to work on working public transportation, and
wouldn't dream of demanding to work from home. If we want to work in
CS we major in CS. We help each other without stalking and without
sniping.

 

[spinoza1111]

[Qwertyioup]
is wrong not offer one escape way, one chance
i say: to live and let to live (expecially people that
are in trouble)

I agree.
Stick to criticisms ofSpinoza1111'sviews on C programming. There's
no point bringing up other, off-topic issues that none of us here can
possibly be in a position judge.

Well, yes. But how about you address that suggestion to Nilges?

He's the one who keep introducing personal attacks into every topic.
He's got a library of charges against enemies from his past that he
throws into posts all the time. I realise that it's hopeless to expect
him to stop or respond to any request to prove his assertions, but
every now and then I may put a notice on record that his version of
events is disputed.

Though what do you really expect to see in a topic titled
"Personal attacks by moderators in a moderated group are
unprofessional" but personal smears and flames?

Anyway, with that made clear I hope, I will try to restrain myself
from further pig wrestling.

This guy is a troll of the first water. Like Harlan Sanders he comes
here to anonymously flame. I've seen him on the ferry, with dull eyes.

He was and possibly is a moderator at the dysfunctional site www.lamma.com.hk
who was offended at the length, literacy, research and civility of my
content when I was made a moderator. He was also offended when I
responded to stalking with artwork...and was invited by a highly
respected Lamma artist and gallery owner to have a one-man show. He
tried to disrupt the show and then started transferring inciting posts
from "fight club" to my zone. I deleted them and complained to the
sysadmin, who has in fact poor literacy in English and didn't
understand the issues, and who inserted a rebuke into my area. I
deleted this as I was deleting all offensive materials, so the
sysadmin flew into a rage and suspended some privileges. I then
decided that being a moderator or even posting at the site was a waste
of time, and left the site (in 2007), never to return.

quertyuiop has long made it his business to stalk and harass me and
may have to reported to the Hong Kong police.

I now will use the word "troll" since Jaron "You Are Not a Gadget" has
satisfactorily come up with a good definition. It's an anonymous
person who posts hatred. Quertyuiop and "Colonel Harlan Sanders" are
both Lanier trolls.

But what Lanier also just dimly perceives is that named people who
seek unfair money and/or power, from Jimmy Wales to Seebach, enable
anonymous Lanier-trolls. It's fear of their vicious attacks which make
lurkers here silent and women like Julienne and blm to chide me for
not being polite...for stirring up trouble.