Richard Heathfield's lie

[Walter Banks]

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.

 

[Nick Keighley]

<stuff>

I thought you weren't posting anymore?

 

[Seebs]

<stuff>

I thought you weren't posting anymore?

Please read the subject line.

-s

 

[William Hughes]

[snips]

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".

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

- William Hughes

 

[spinoza1111]

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

Please read the subject line.

-s

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

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

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".

No, they'd call it a "waste of time", or if you persist, "vexatious
litigation".

But we'll never know, as this will never go to any court.

Under counsel's advice I have sent a letter to your (our) publisher.
This issue is not going away.

Lying when you say "under counsel's advice", as you don't have a
counsel, certainly no qualified counsel would advise such idiotic
action. Or by "counsel" do you mean your Magic Eight Ball?

-- And you can simply name your counsel if you still claim he exists.
Lawyers acting in a case are not afraid to be named.


And the above also confirms that Nilges was lying when he wrote:

Julienne, blm, and Malcolm, I shall not participate in these newsgroup
until you find it in yourselves to complain to Heathfield and Seebach

(I think all three have declined to do so.)

Not that anyone believed that he would stay away for more than a few
days.

 

[jamm]

spinoza1111 wrote:

This issue is not going away.

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

 

[Seebs]

No, they'd call it a "waste of time", or if you persist, "vexatious
litigation".

Depending on the jurisdiction, I think in most cases you're pretty
much screwed if you want to make a defamation claim about something that
shows every sign of being an honest mistake -- certainly, it would be
perfectly ordinary for someone to check the addresses of posters in a
newsgroup to see who posts there. Especially if you get an immediate
retraction/correction as soon as the error is pointed out.

But we'll never know, as this will never go to any court.

This seems a safe bet.

Lying when you say "under counsel's advice", as you don't have a
counsel, certainly no qualified counsel would advise such idiotic
action. Or by "counsel" do you mean your Magic Eight Ball?

He might, in fact, have found an actual lawyer willing to advise him.

Keep in mind: Most lawyers work hourly. Some lawyers will happily
advise you to sue the tooth fairy, as long as they think you can pay
the hourly rate for their research time trying to find an acceptable
venue of service.

-- And you can simply name your counsel if you still claim he exists.
Lawyers acting in a case are not afraid to be named.

If he files the case, we'll see. Otherwise...

And the above also confirms that Nilges was lying when he wrote:

(I think all three have declined to do so.)

I suspect so.

Not that anyone believed that he would stay away for more than a few
days.

While obviously no one is wrong *all* the time, any more than anyone is
right *all* the time, I've found that he's one of the most reliably wrong
people I've ever encountered. It's sort of impressive, when you think about
it; he's doing way better than chance.

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

No, they'd call it a "waste of time", or if you persist, "vexatious
litigation".

But we'll never know, as this will never go to any court.


Lying when you say "under counsel's advice", as you don't have a
counsel, certainly no qualified counsel would advise such idiotic
action. Or by "counsel" do you mean your Magic Eight Ball?

-- And you can simply name your counsel if you still claim he exists.
Lawyers acting in a case are not afraid to be named.

And the above also confirms that Nilges was lying when he wrote:



(I think all three have declined to do so.)

Indeed they have, and part of the problem are people who don't want to
soil their hands by defending their fellow human beings.

Not that anyone believed that he would stay away for more than a few
days.

Your addictive personality isn't mine. I said I'd wait until March 7
and I did. You are jerking yourself off, Sanders, because you're not
here to contribute C code. You're here to lay the ghost of your own
weakness and failure to rest, temporarily, by finding someone who you
think is weaker and more of a failure than you are.

 

[spinoza1111]

Depending on the jurisdiction, I think in most cases you're pretty
much screwed if you want to make a defamation claim about something that
shows every sign of being an honest mistake -- certainly, it would be
perfectly ordinary for someone to check the addresses of posters in a
newsgroup to see who posts there.  Especially if you get an immediate
retraction/correction as soon as the error is pointed out.

You're a child, Seebach. You see, the above letter was never
retracted. If you are referring instead to Heathfield's "honest
mistake" concerning the 30-odd posts that were carefully reviewed by
Peter Neumann and approved for posting in the properly moderated group
comp.risks:

* Heathfield lied, because he knew that the subject line doesn't
contain the names of the approximately ten authors digested in each
comp.risks post

* He compounded the lie by claiming to have made an honest mistake,
since we can establish he knew that the search method was incorrect.
His claim to be a computer consultant shows this.

* Both lies, far from being satire or hyperbole, were made with
malicious intent to defame, probably to enhance his business standing
and therefore from base motives, even as you defamed Herb Schildt and
paid your way into the C99 standard in order to establish false
credentials as a "programmer" rather than taking classes at
university. UK courts will not be amused by a combination of
commercial motivation and an independent malice. US courts will in
like manner not be amused by your demi=fraudulent conduct relative to
credentials when it is linked to your campaign against Schildt.

* Both lies were part of a ten year pattern of defamatory conduct
with a full audit trail in Heathfield's case, and a similar pattern
from you over the past several months, where separate instances of
defamation of myself and others are probably in the hundreds or
thousands.

This seems a safe bet.


He might, in fact, have found an actual lawyer willing to advise him.
Perhaps.

Keep in mind:  Most lawyers work hourly.  Some lawyers will happily
advise you to sue the tooth fairy, as long as they think you can pay
the hourly rate for their research time trying to find an acceptable
venue of service.


If he files the case, we'll see.  Otherwise...

I of course seek to settle this matter between you and me, and between
Heathfield and me, Mr. Seebach, outside a courtroom and with no
pecuniary gain to me or loss to you. I have said before I will drop
this matter should I get an emailed copy of a public post retracting
"C: The Complete Nonsense", the removal of that document from the
public Web, and a posted apology from you for your conduct.

I suspect so.


While obviously no one is wrong *all* the time, any more than anyone is
right *all* the time, I've found that he's one of the most reliably wrong
people I've ever encountered.  It's sort of impressive, when you think about
it; he's doing way better than chance.

How would you know? You claim not to read my posts. I was in fact
right when I was the first to notice your beginner's bug in the one
line strlen you posted last year. Since I explained C runtime to
prospective computer science majors and graduate students at
Princeton, I am aware that one does so using a stack. I also proved it
possible to ignore string.h while you were submitting code with bugs
and telling everyone, with a refreshing honesty that excludes,
however, the virtue of charity, that you need to be excused because
you have a learning disorder.

 

[spinoza1111]

spinoza1111wrote:


Case rests.

Blow me. I meant something quite different from your interpretation:
that I would take a break and THEN see of Julienne, blm or Malcolm had
addressed this problem, and then decide what to do.

Furthermore, to mock a person for changing his mind is to mock a
person for exercising a right. I made no contract, since nothing was
given me in return, nor have I any intent to extort this.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

* Heathfield lied, because he knew that the subject line doesn't
contain the names of the approximately ten authors digested in each
comp.risks post

Obviously, he did not know that. And more to the point, whatever you
believe, you could never prove he did. So your "case" has not a single
leg to stand on.

* Both lies were part of a ten year pattern of defamatory conduct
with a full audit trail in Heathfield's case, and a similar pattern
from you over the past several months, where separate instances of
defamation of myself and others are probably in the hundreds or
thousands.

And yet, in those ten years of repeated defamation, you have had the
saintly resolve to turn the other cheek and never take him to court to
win the case that you so clearly could.

Or alternatively, you've been blowing hot air for the last ten years.

Whatever your motives, why should anyone believe that this time is
going to be different?

Your addictive personality isn't mine. I said I'd wait until March 7

You're lying again. (See your own posts for proof.)
(And "addictive personality"??? Addicted to what, pray tell?)

As you lie every time you promise to
1) sue someone for libel
2) leave a newsgroup
-- plenty of other untruths, but you keep repeating these ones and
it's become pathetic.

 

[spinoza1111]

spinoza1111wrote:



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.

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.

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!"

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"

 

[spinoza1111]

Obviously, he did not know that. And more to the point, whatever you
believe, you could never prove he did. So your "case" has not a single
leg to stand on.




And yet, in those ten years of repeated defamation, you have had the
saintly resolve to turn the other cheek and never take him to court to
win the case that you so clearly could.

Or alternatively, you've been blowing hot air for the last ten years.

Whatever your motives, why should anyone believe that this time is
going to be different?




You're lying again. (See your own posts for proof.)
(And "addictive personality"??? Addicted to what, pray tell?)

As you lie every time you promise to
1) sue someone for libel
2) leave a newsgroup
-- plenty of other untruths, but you keep repeating these ones and
it's become pathetic.

One thing, Kentucky Fried, I don't understand. Although I never said
I'd leave, saying instead I'd post code in answer to Julienne's
challenge, I don't see what if anything it proves if a person says he
will go and doesn't.

There could be any number of reasons for a change in mind, most of
them not discreditable.

But, as I have said, the "logic" of these newsgroups seems to me to be
a dreamlike "logic" which is based on the fact that a critical number
of posters here grew up in "feminist" families of the 1970s and 1980s
in which the father was shamed using faux-feminist themes in addition
to the usual bimbo crap: you're not a man because we're not rich, shit
like that.

A critical mass of posters here probably saw the shamed Father depart
and return in several attempts at reconciliation, and because each
departure, and to an extent each return, was a childhood wound, here,
the search is on for ersatz fathers that people who are
chronologically but in no wise emotionally adults can feel superior
to, thereby temporarily and in an addictive pattern relieving feelings
of impotence which in the case of many American programmers have a
basis in reality.

The hilarious pastiche of the Boxer, like so much ill-digested Pop
music in these childish minds, which of course tried to reverse the
dignity Paul Simon gave to the Boxer, was not about me, nor about a
Boxer, not even the original track. It was about the American father.

It is very tiresome to come in here and be a target for wounded
shitheads and sleazeball limey computer consultants. It is very
tiresome indeed.

On Julienne's challenge: I designed via simple comments a regex parser
vastly more complete than Kernighan's example in Beautiful Code, using
a new idea: model sequencing and alternation of substrings on logical
And and logical Or and provide "strong" and "weak" versions of both
operators, dispensing with the silly talk of "greedy" or "non-greedy"
regexes.

But at that point, I decided that:

(1) I've already demonstrated that after a few weeks of refresher, I'm
a better C coder than anyone in this shithole, with the exception of
Willem, based on my performance in the string replace program.

(2) C is a language for retards

(3) For technical interaction these newsgroups suck because too many
lunatics use them to jerk themselves off

Therefore, I shall do the code in a language for grown-ups (C sharp)
and put it on my blog at spinoza1111.wordpress.com when it is ready.

But I shall return here anytime I need a laugh. Get used to it,
Orville.

There is a Yokel named Harlan
Who said to his ex-wife, darlin',
Take me back in your shack
Looky how I can attack
Listen to Harlan, snarlin' at his darlin'!

There is a Rube named Sanders
Who like a chicken has danders
'Bout boys he don't like
'Specially when they strike
Back like a man at Sanders.

Way down South in ole Kaintuck
Old Harlan Sanders don't give a ****
'Bout nobody but hisself:
He wastes his time and therefore, wealth
In a homeless shelter he makes his stand
Thinks he's the toughest in the land
But he ain't nothin' but a fool
He needs to go back to school
Get hisself a GED
Or put an end to his misery.
Dosey do and turn around
They pay him no mind in his old town.

 

[Colonel Harlan Sanders]

One thing, Kentucky Fried, I don't understand. Although I never said
I'd leave, saying instead I'd post code in answer to Julienne's
challenge, I don't see what if anything it proves if a person says he
will go and doesn't.

You can say that over and over (and I'm sure you will), but it
contradicts your own words:


Anyway, this counts as just one lie, I won't add to the score for each
time you lie about lying, that would be too easy.

I note no response for the request to name your "counsel", and so I
remain sure he is purely imaginary.

-- As for the rambling discourse about feminism, abusive parents, and
god knows what else: I'm sure you tried to pep it up with personal
abuse, but absolutely no one will bother to wade through your bilious
rantings, so I don't need to read, much less comment more on that.

 

[jamm]

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

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.

 

[spinoza1111]

You can say that over and over (and I'm sure you will), but it
contradicts your own words:


Anyway, this counts as just one lie, I won't add to the score for each
time you lie about lying, that would be too easy.

I note no response for the request to name your "counsel", and so I
remain sure he is purely imaginary.

-- As for the  rambling discourse about feminism, abusive parents, and
god knows what else: I'm sure you tried to pep it up with personal
abuse, but absolutely no one will bother to wade through your bilious
rantings, so I don't need to read, much less comment more on that.

There is a rube named Harlan
Who ain't a real Colonel, that's "sartain",
Who "kain't" read, down in Kaint-uck
On them big words this hillbilly gets stuck
That dumb old boy named Harlan.

 

[spinoza1111]

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?

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 have
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.