Prev: in-demand theoretical CS knowledge
Next: Finding a constant-space algorithm
From: Richard Heathfield on 27 Dec 2009 04:48
In
<c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284c35(a)h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111 wrote:

> 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":
>
> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> self-styled spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com,

That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
*this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.

> 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."
>
> However, a search of the comp.risks archive at
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks for "Nilges" produces this:

<irrelevant list snipped>


> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
> me, or a response to my posts.

So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
as spinoza1111? I think not.

> Each post was diligently reviewed by
> Peter G. Neumann or one of his designates.

Irrelevant, since none of them identified spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com as the
author of the article within the message text.

>
> Richard Heathfield's post was a lie made with malicious intent to
> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.

Clearly wrong.

<snip>

> Heathfield cannot defend this unconscionable behavior, since he
> claims that it "seems" to him that there were no posts in comp.risks
> after searching it:

Wrong. Again. There are a great many posts in comp.risks, and I have
never claimed otherwise. My claim is that I searched the Google
Groups archives for articles by spinoza1111 in comp.risks, and found
none. That claim is true.

> but, the simplest possible search provides 37
> hits.

Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
were, in turn:

spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com
spinoza1111
spinoza

As you can see, I started off with a highly specific search, and
increasingly slackened it in an attempt to get at least one hit. But
hits came there none.

>
> It may be time for me to contact a UK solicitor.

What is this? The fifth lawsuit threat? The ninth? The nineteenth? I
lost track a long time ago.

If you are silly enough to proceed with it, be aware that I am
perfectly prepared to prove the truth of my statement as written.
Since your claim seems to be that it is defamatory /because/ it's a
lie, proving the statement to be true will obviously defeat the
claim. That is all I have to say on the matter.

> Like most criminals, Heathfield believes that one loses
> "credibility" when one makes a mistake: but a raw large count of
> errors has to be divided by contribution volume, since creative
> people make mistakes. "Credibility" isn't about making "errors".

"Credibility" is a measure of the extent to which other people believe
you, which in turn is based on your track record not only of honesty
but also of cluefulness. That is why I have no concerns about my own
credibility, and no confidence in yours.

> It's about basic honesty, and Heathfield's dishonesty is here most
> clearly on display.

You have yet to demonstrate that claim - which /is/ defamatory, but
don't worry; I have no concerns about anything you say having the
slightest effect on my reputation.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
From: Keith Thompson on 27 Dec 2009 05:45
Richard Heathfield <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> writes:
> In
> <c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284c35(a)h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>> 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":
>>
>> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
>> self-styled spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com,
>
> That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
> *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.

Google Groups does mangle addresses that way, in an attempt
(misguided IMHO) to prevent harvesting by spammers. There's not much
that Google Groups users can do to avoid it, other than switching
to a real news server.

[...]

>> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
>> me, or a response to my posts.
>
> So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
> separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
> unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
> without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
> as spinoza1111? I think not.

Richard, I'm not quite sure what point you're making. In spite of the
way Google Groups mangles addresses, the unmangled address is still
visible for searching.

The search I just performed can be reduced to the following URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=spinoza1111&as_ugroup=comp.risks

This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
that include postings by "spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com". The fact that
"spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com" is mangled to "spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com" when
the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.

One such posting has:
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.1041224103.risko(a)chiron.csl.sri.com>

My guess, as I wrote before, is that you attempted to search for
articles in comp.risks whose author is "spinoza1111". There are
no such articles, since each posted article is a multi-part digest
whose author is "RISKS List Owner". The Google Groups Advanced
search doesn't recognize the headers of the individual parts as
headers; it treats them as part of the body of the full article.

[...]

>> but, the simplest possible search provides 37
>> hits.
>
> Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
> were, in turn:
>
> spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com
> spinoza1111
> spinoza
>
> As you can see, I started off with a highly specific search, and
> increasingly slackened it in an attempt to get at least one hit. But
> hits came there none.

Did you enter "spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com" in the Author box, or in one of
the "Find web pages that have..." boxes at the top of the search form?

[...]

Of course, nobody should mistake this for a defense of Spinny's
obsessive claim of deliberate deceipt.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u(a)mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
From: Richard Heathfield on 27 Dec 2009 06:13
Keith Thompson wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> writes:
>> In
>> <c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284c35(a)h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>> spinoza1111 wrote:
>>> 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":
>>>
>>> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
>>> self-styled spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com,
>> That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
>> *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.
>
> Google Groups does mangle addresses that way, in an attempt
> (misguided IMHO) to prevent harvesting by spammers. There's not much
> that Google Groups users can do to avoid it, other than switching
> to a real news server.

That would be sufficient, yes. The mangling is a known feature of Google
Groups, so there is little, if any, excuse for using Google Groups when
that known feature will change the meaning of the message.

>
> [...]
>
>>> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
>>> me, or a response to my posts.
>> So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
>> separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
>> unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
>> without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
>> as spinoza1111? I think not.
>
> Richard, I'm not quite sure what point you're making. In spite of the
> way Google Groups mangles addresses, the unmangled address is still
> visible for searching.
>
> The search I just performed can be reduced to the following URL:
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=spinoza1111&as_ugroup=comp.risks
>
> This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
> that include postings by "spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com".

You were more fortunate than me, then, since I performed three separate
searches, none of which returned any hits.


The fact that
> "spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com" is mangled to "spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com" when
> the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.
>
> One such posting has:
> Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.1041224103.risko(a)chiron.csl.sri.com>
>
> My guess, as I wrote before, is that you attempted to search for
> articles in comp.risks whose author is "spinoza1111".

You are correct.

> There are
> no such articles, since each posted article is a multi-part digest
> whose author is "RISKS List Owner". The Google Groups Advanced
> search doesn't recognize the headers of the individual parts as
> headers; it treats them as part of the body of the full article.

Well, that certainly changes things - I must admit I never thought I'd
have to shave /myself/ with Hanlon's Razor, but it seems that this has
become one such occasion.

<snip>

> Of course, nobody should mistake this for a defense of Spinny's
> obsessive claim of deliberate deceipt.

Right.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
From: Herbert Rosenau on 27 Dec 2009 07:29
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:19:45 UTC, superpollo <utente(a)esempio.net>
wrote:

> spinoza1111 ha scritto:
>
> > defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>
> are you a judge?

Don't ask a twit! spinozza is known as a twit who dooes nothing know
about C anyway.

--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2R Deutsch ist da!
From: spinoza1111 on 27 Dec 2009 10:19
On Dec 27, 6:45 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...(a)mib.org> wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> writes:
> > In
> > <c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284...(a)h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> >spinoza1111wrote:
> >> 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":
>
> >> "Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> >> self-styled spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com,
>
> > That's a misquote. I do not abbreviate email addresses in that way. In
> > *this* thread, it's a highly relevant misquote.
>
> Google Groups does mangle addresses that way, in an attempt
> (misguided IMHO) to prevent harvesting by spammers.  There's not much
> that Google Groups users can do to avoid it, other than switching
> to a real news server.
>
> [...]
>
> >> Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by
> >> me, or a response to my posts.
>
> > So you claim. But can you provide a message ID for any one of those
> > separate original posts where the message text (not the headers,
> > unless you can demonstrate that Google Groups searches the headers
> > without specifically being requested to do so) identifies the poster
> > asspinoza1111? I think not.
>
> Richard, I'm not quite sure what point you're making.  In spite of the
> way Google Groups mangles addresses, the unmangled address is still
> visible for searching.
>
> The search I just performed can be reduced to the following URL:http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=spinoza1111&as_ugroup=com...
>
> This search successfully finds 7 issues of the Risks Digests
> that include postings by "spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com".  The fact that
> "spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com" is mangled to "spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com" when
> the article is displayed doesn't appear to be relevant to the search.

Prior to that time I appear as Ed Nilges at Princeton.

These are the original non-reply articles that were reviewed by Peter
Neumann or his designee under the higher standard he uses for new
content:

Illinois Bell Fire
Social content of video games
Four-digit address causes NYC death
Thinking like a manager
The RISKS of political correctness in computer science
The Total Information Awareness program is a RISK!
Battlefield Robotics are a risk to the world public

My post, "The RISKS of political correctness in computer science"
resulted in my being interviewed for an ACM film on women and
computing at Princeton. I believe this film was "Minerva's Machine"
but I do not have access to it and I do not know whether I'm in the
final release. This post also resulted, along with other posts, in my
being invited to an online panel on Internet "freedom" in 2000
alongside Mike Godwin.

I believe my post on the Total Information Awareness program was input
through Peter Neumann to Congressional testimony on this misbegotten
Bush-era boondoggle, and it may have helped to get the TIA canceled.

I say these things to demonstrate that Heathfield is motivated by envy
and malice, as the editor of one unsuccessful book from a publisher
with a very poor reputation

Using the proper search tool (swish-e at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks),
we find:

Nothing (no articles and no replies) by Richard Heathfield: he
confirms he hasn't posted to comp.risks. He may have tried and he may
have been rejected. Richard, have you ever attempted to post to
comp.risks? A rejection would explain your malicious conduct rather
nicely.

Peter Seebach (apparently Scripto Boy) quoted on Y2K, once


>
> One such posting has:
> Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.1041224103.risko(a)chiron.csl.sri.com>
>
> My guess, as I wrote before, is that you attempted to search for
> articles in comp.risks whose author is "spinoza1111".  There are
> no such articles, since each posted article is a multi-part digest
> whose author is "RISKS List Owner".  The Google Groups Advanced
> search doesn't recognize the headers of the individual parts as
> headers; it treats them as part of the body of the full article.
>
> [...]
>
> >> but, the simplest possible search provides 37
> >> hits.
>
> > Wrong. I made three searches, all of which returned no hits. They
> > were, in turn:
>
> > spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com
> >spinoza1111
> > spinoza
>
> > As you can see, I started off with a highly specific search, and
> > increasingly slackened it in an attempt to get at least one hit. But
> > hits came there none.
>
> Did you enter "spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com" in the Author box, or in one of
> the "Find web pages that have..." boxes at the top of the search form?
>
> [...]
>
> Of course, nobody should mistake this for a defense of Spinny's
> obsessive claim of deliberate deceipt.

God forbid, Spelling Rainbow (it's "deceit", Clue Boy). What you here
demonstrate is that Heathfield lied, OR made such a basic mistake that
it's questionable whether he's a functional individual, and out of the
question that he's qualified to speak on ANY technical matter
whatsoever. This not only destroys his "credibility" under his
misdefinition of "credibility" as "never making an error", it means
that he's posing here fraudulently as an expert. That in itself
wouldn't be actionable, but there are countless instances here where
he's defamed to professional reputation of people whose livelihoods
are thereby threatened, starting with Navia and Schildt.

Yes, it's time to contact a solicitor. Monsieur Navia, if you are
reading this and care to join me, send me email at
spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com.
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...(a)mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
> Nokia
> "We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
>     -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: in-demand theoretical CS knowledge
Next: Finding a constant-space algorithm