Prev: Finding a constant-space algorithm
Next: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BABY MEANINGS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: spinoza1111 on 24 Dec 2009 21:52
Richard Heathfield, the editor (not author) of a single unsuccessful
book on C, "C Unleashed" has long abused posters here for making
"errors" when they attempt to be creative, to innovate, to suggest new
ways to do things, and he believes, like many incompetent programmers,
that "errors" diminish "credibility", despite the fact that a high
error count has to be transformed into an error rate by dividing it by
contributions made.

However, a bald-faced lie does in fact destroy credibility. In fact,
the very meaning of the word "credibility" has far less to do with
errors made than with simple, basic honesty.

Richard Heathfield has long participated in the hounding of Herb
Schildt, was based on a dishonest document by Peter Seebach (the
moderator of comp.lang.c.moderated) which listed about twenty trite
errors and then (while saying that these were the "known" errors)
stating also, in a dishonest fashion because contradictory, that there
"were" hundreds more and a "drinking game" in the book. This post has
caused considerable distress to Herb which means that under British
and American libel law, it was malicious and a libel.

Heathfield has also told us stories that are impossible to credit,
such as one about a female CS instructor who, he said, claimed that
the for loop condition is tested after each statement in the for loop.

Heathfield loves to trip up people on errors which they retract
because he's a liar, and this evening he has lied egregiously and in a
way that can be immediately exposed.

In a post today on comp.lang.c.moderated, Richard Heathfield writes:

"Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
self-styled spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com, but this does seem to be one such
occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never
posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives
at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it
seems that not a single article by spinoza1111 has ever been
approved. It seems to be a very successful policy."

This is a lie, and it constitutes defamation under British law as does
Seebach's claims about Schildt.

Search for "Edward G. Nilges" comp.risks: : it is common knowledge
here that spinoza1111==Edward G. Nilges:

See http://www.five-ten-sg.com/risks/22.html

Issue 22.44: The Total Information Awareness program is a RISK!
(Edward G. Nilges)
Issue 22:45: Re: O Big Brother, where art thou? (Edward G. Nilges)
Issue 22:48: Re: O Big Brother, where are thou? (David Martin, Edward
Nilges)

See also http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.35.html

Issue 24:35: The Risks of Retro Computing? (Edward G. Nilges)

See also http://lists.jammed.com/RISKS/2004/11/0000.html:

Issue 23:58: Battlefield Robotics are risk to the world public (Edward
G. Nilges)

Issue 11:88: Re: Formalism in Computer Science Education (Edward G.
Nilges): note that based on this post, I was invited to be interviewed
for a planned film on women and computing)


A search at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/php/risks/search.php?query=Nilges
produces 37 distinct hits. Each is a separate new post or reply, and
each was diligently reviewed by Peter Neumann, and approved.

Furthermore, he agreed to be interviewed by me on Dijkstra in 2003.

Heathfield needs to retract his lie, and leave this group.

Otherwise he's risking a lawsuit for defamation under the rather
strict laws of his country.

Please ignore Richard Heathfield.
--
comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: clcm(a)plethora.net -- you must
have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Finding a constant-space algorithm
Next: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BABY MEANINGS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~