Richard Heathfield's lie

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

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]

spinoza1111wrote:



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.

 

[Eugene]

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

Take this unprofessional filth offline please.

 

[Rui Maciel]

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

 

[Keith Thompson]

<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.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

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.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

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.

 

[Seebs]

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

 

[Seebs]

Despite many threats of libel from Mr Nilges and/or from
(e-mail address removed), 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

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

In <[email protected]>, 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.

 

[Keith Thompson]

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.)

 

[Chris McDonald]

.... (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.

 

[jacob navia]

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?

 

[gwowen]

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

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

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

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.

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

 

[Michael Foukarakis]

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.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

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?

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.

 

[gwowen]

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.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

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.

 

[Keith Thompson]

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.