Prev: in-demand theoretical CS knowledge
Next: Finding a constant-space algorithm
From: spinoza1111 on 24 Dec 2009 12:14
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, 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:

Volume 6 Issue 87
Illinois Bell Fire
Volume 7 Issue 45
Video Games
Volume 7 Issue 49
Social content of computer games
Volume 7 Issue 55
The Ethics of Conflict Simulation (Re: RISKS-7.49)
Volume 11 Issue 55
Four-digit address causes NYC death
Volume 11 Issue 57
re: truncation of fields (Risks 11.55)
Re: Four-digit address causes NYC death
Four-digit address causes NYC death (Nilges, RISKS-11.55)
Volume 11 Issue 60
Re: Four-digit address causes NYC death (Nilges, RISKS-11.55)
Volume 11 Issue 69
Re: Four-digit address causes NYC death (Pellett, RISKS-11.60)
Volume 11 Issue 84
Thinking like a manager (Challenger)
Volume 11 Issue 86
The RISKS of political correctness in computer science
Volume 11 Issue 87
Re: The impact of formalism on Computer Science education
Volume 11 Issue 88
Sexism, programming, and social goals
Conflicting goals (was Re: the impact of formalism...)
Re: The impact of formalism on Computer Science education
Volume 11 Issue 89
Re: Political Correctness in Computer Science
Re: The RISKS of political correctness in computer science
Re: Formalism vs. Experimentation (Pomeranz, RISKS-11.87)
Re: 11.86 -- Political Correctness (cont'd)
Volume 11 Issue 90
Political Correctness: DON'T PANIC!
Re: Formalism versus Experimentation (RISKS-11.88)
Women and computer science education
Formal-dehyde and Exper-topinion
Volume 11 Issue 91
Re: Formalism vs. Experimentation (RISKS-11.89)
Volume 11 Issue 92
Algol vs. Fortran (Nilges, RISKS-11.90)
Volume 11 Issue 93
Re: Political correctness (Nilges, RISKS-11.86)
political correctness - to PANIC or not to PANIC
Formalism and women
Volume 13 Issue 03
Re: "Miracle" computer-controlled piano teaching (RISKS-13.02)
Volume 22 Issue 44
The Total Information Awareness program is a RISK! (Edward G. Nilges)
Volume 22 Issue 45
Re: O Big Brother, where art thou? (Edward G. Nilges)
Volume 22 Issue 47
Re: O Big Brother, where are thou? (Jerrold Leichter)
Volume 22 Issue 48
Re: O Big Brother, where are thou? (Edward Nilges)
Volume 23 Issue 58
Battlefield Robotics are risk to the world public (Edward G. Nilges)
Volume 23 Issue 59
Re: Battlefield Robotics are risk to the world public (Geoff Kuenning)
Volume 23 Issue 60
Re: Battlefield Robotics are risk to the world (Edward G. Nilges)

Each separate hit is a separate original post by me, a response by me,
or a response to my posts. Each post was diligently reviewed by Peter
G. Neumann or one of his designates.

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.

Neumann's diligence, which may be contrasted with Seebach's
carelessness, was shown when I sent him a review copy of my book
"Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler", because he had graciously
assented to be interviewed by me on Dojkstra. He found errors in the
index (which I did not create) and noted them.

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: but, the simplest possible search provides 37 hits.

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

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".

It's about basic honesty, and Heathfield's dishonesty is here most
clearly on display.
From: superpollo on 24 Dec 2009 12:19
spinoza1111 ha scritto:

> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.

are you a judge?
From: spinoza1111 on 24 Dec 2009 12:26
On Dec 25, 1:19 am, superpollo <ute...(a)esempio.net> wrote:
> spinoza1111 ha scritto:
>
> > defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>
> are you a judge?

You know what I mean. Legal positivism is in fact the belief that
lawyers predict the outcome of cases so as not to waste time. Clients
also make this prediction. There statements that so and so is "guilty"
are made legally in an adversary system because it's the client's
right, and the lawyer's responsibility, to claim the guilt of their
opponents.

This is but one example of Heathfield's conduct. Many people here are
tired of him.

Seebach is also guilty of libel since in "C: The Complete Nonsense"
Seebach posted malicious falsehoods intended to harm Herb Schildt and
the harm occured. Having his name mocked in a childish fashion by
being transformed into "Bullschildt" caused Herb and his family
psychological distress and lost income.
From: superpollo on 24 Dec 2009 13:04
spinoza1111 ha scritto:
> On Dec 25, 1:19 am, superpollo <ute...(a)esempio.net> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 ha scritto:
>>
>>> defame and is libel under UK law. Seebach is also guilty of libel.
>> are you a judge?
>
> You know what I mean.

so. you say you would hire a solicitor in uk against rh and ps? why dont
you just go ahead with that instead of simply threaten to do so?

i dont get it, really...

bye
From: io_x on 25 Dec 2009 04:43

"spinoza1111" <spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:c9e60054-a473-4162-8aa5-c11fca284c35(a)h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Please, i hope the national justice is out Usenet

we have a mind, one think
and suppose to use it for see what is true from what is false
what is really important from what is not.

if all you is not agree (seen the law that states have or will have
[for example no one can criticize the local tirannus or "assessore"] )
all will be politically correct, and nobody will can speak freely
because fear of all national laws

In other words the real danger
came when **all say one thing** (false?? true??)
and the national law enforces that

not when *someone* says false thing, and *some other* says the true.

at last is this what i think, but yes i can make errors on this too,
so i can speak only for me.

Buon Natale a tutti



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