On May 9, 1:43*pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
I'm not the one who is targeting Herb Schildt and Jacques Navia. No,
Richard, you're the bully. You maintain a constant presence and a
consistency of response that in not giving us any respite from your
shit is marked by psychosis. I came in here to post status re the
spinoza programming language, and I discovered you bullying, stalking,
hounding, and harassing the author of the lccwin compiler, and I'm fed
up with your shit. If you don't like it, I'll be in Paris in June, and
you can emerge from whatever Limey hole you live in and come on down
and say what you say here to my face like a man.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:03:38 -0700, spinoza1111 wrote:


I can feel a lot of anger there.

But is it really necessary to repeat these mud-throwing sessions over and
over ? It is not even funny anymore.

AvK

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:03:38 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

Seeing as how the facts in the cases I'm personally familiar with bear
little relation to the face-saving version you keep repeating, and no
doubt have convinced yourself actually happened, I'm afraid all you've
done is cast doubt on the other events you recount.


.... face-saving bollocks snipped

Shall we look at the history of that page to see the true version?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinoza1111&action=histo ry>
"remove section, WP is not a soapbox or your personal forum to attack
others"
"Personal Attack warning 4"
"Further personal attacks: Final personal attack warning"
etc, etc
And if you go into the text, full of your usual paranoid tirades and
conspiracy theories.

That's why you were blocked. You vandalised pages, inserted your
opinions as facts, and responded with abuse when you were challenged.
That's how "seriously" Wikipedia takes you. And they are a pretty
tolerant bunch, you have to be persistently assholish to get banned
there.


Lots of artists are almost as obnoxious and conceited as you are, yet
their art can find an audience, because it's good. You however are
both an asshole and a poor artist. So no sale.

And STFU about Stenhouse. I never doubted you climbed it. I've climbed
it. A grandmother could. No one cares. What the hell are you talking
about "You ran right past me"? You're fantasising (again).

Every time you tell this story, you embellish it to make yourself more
heroic. It's pathetic.


It's his site, he can delete what he likes.
Not that that has anything to do with the point: You are not allowed
to return. Ever.

And for someone who routinely calls others "homophobes" on little or
no evidence, you're pretty free with using homophobic abuse.


Yes, I'll sit tight IN YOUR SEAT.
Meanwhile, you'll have time to work out exactly what crime I have
committed. Disagreeing with you is not a criminal offence.


1) You don't know who I am.
2) I would love to see you approach whoever it is who has taken "your
seat" and start ranting at them about stalking and fat bastards who
sabotaged your art show and what not. The police will be waiting for
you at the pier.

spinoza1111 said:

<snip>

There, there, Edward - neither am I. I've certainly never targeted Herbert
Schildt, although I have sometimes criticised his books. And I don't even
know who Jacques Navia is.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:09:50 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

It's fascinating to see how he weaves these fantasies, embellishing
and polishing, adding more details. It's like watching a folk tale
evolve, each retelling getting more exciting, the Hero more heroic,
his Persecutors more evil.

Interesting. "The law has a simple test".
"ANONYMOUS poster is the harasser" (said "Spinoza1111").

What "law" are you referring to?

A chance to demonstrate your famous "referencing" skills.
Or post a few reams of your usual abuse if you just made it up.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:33:30 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Now you have destroyed his windmills his world will fall apart.


AvK

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:03:38 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

I didn't say the panel was fraudulent. Just you for claiming it gave
you credibility.

You were "invited" by Lessig.
How many thousand people did he "invite"?

Only an idiot would imagine that adding a comment to an open forum,
a PR event to promote a book:
<http://press.princeton.edu/sunstein/sun_forum.txt>
means you can associate yourself with anyone else who commented.

On May 11, 2:12*am, Qwertyioup <Qwertyi...@none.com> wrote:
Perhaps about 1000.0e-2<<1

(should be interesting to see this guy, who knows nothing about
programming and is abusing this forum thereby, figure that one out).
The invitation came by way of a pre-existing internet relation to
Sunstein (not Lessig). I'd sent him a courtesy copy of my Amazon
review of CODE and he deemed it suitable to reply. I was invited, to
my surprise, and when I received the invitation I called my former
Princeton supervisor to verify that it was on the level. It wasn't a
public discussion open at the time to "anyone". As a result, Mike
Godwin knows "who" I "am" although he thinks me strange. He's
occasionally responded to me here.

Be sure to make the most of my mistake. Yes, it was Cass Sunstein, not
Lawrence Lessig, who moderated the forum. At the time, I'd read and
Amazon-reviewed several books by Cass Sunstein, Lessig, Martha
Nussbaum and Geoffrey Robertson and in each case had sent a courtesy
copy to the author, and in each case I'd received gracious and
personally written thank you notes, so I was a bit confused at the
time I referred to the forum. Be sure as the clown you are to make the
most of my brain fart.

Alan, this is how these things work. I have been most of my life
nothing more than a rather hard working software developer since I had
considerable family responsibilities, but I also had been selected to
teach at uni without having an advanced degree and I had had some
success at publication in the form of submitting things to editors. To
my surprise, I had success in creating book proposals at three
separate publishers in 2000.

Low self-esteem is a tool of social control. On my uni newspaper, the
editor really liked my stuff, and said so. Whereupon, way back in the
day (1973, in fact) a group of reporters came to me and told me that
whatever I was, I wasn't Hunter Thompson, and furthermore, on pain of
not being thought a hip okay sort of dude like they were, I was to
desist, and no longer write articles so full of subordinate clauses,
japes, fancies, metaphors, similes, synechdoche, paralogisms,
antinomies, and figures of speech. After all, they did NOT say except
in the form of Crumby comic balloons above their heads in my
imagination, this is Roosevelt not Princeton, and we would like to
qualify for copyboy jobs at the Tribune, and your articles, jostling
ours, make us look bad.

Gee, I thought, these guys are pretty hip with long hair like the
BeeGees, so gee, I thought, maybe I better do as they say.

Imagine my surprise when my supervisor at Princeton said the same
thing, essentially.

Gee, I thought, maybe the real rule is that sumptuary laws apply. To
be merely literate, merely able thanks to hard-working long-dead
priests and nuns to construct a complex sentence, is to be a threat
because you might speak truth to power.

The bullshit at www.lamma.com.HK was the same old same old. Basically,
the washouts and Sixties casualties on Lamma, being for the most part
subjects of the sovereign of a country which had to give it back,
Treaty of Nanjing my ass, are hommes moyen sensuel who want a quiet
life and to appear as masters of the English language. Into Yung Shue
bay sails this American barque and fires a couple of shots *pour
encourager* in the form of texts and the dismay is general, since
Americans are supposed to be aliterate louts.

Because of the Beatles, British men in particular have no conception
that it might be possible for them, today, in former colonies, to
replicate the utter lack of imagination, frivolity, and nth-ratedness
of the colonies, which were manned by an oddly sorted lot, a few first
rates, a few mad bishops, and a lot of people who were failures back
in blighty and who knew nothing about anything at all.

The theory must be preserved, and the theory is that if one can write
well in the upper-clawss register, one will have been Culled Out. For
someone to be so clearly literate, well-informed, good-looking, and
charming as I, yet for all that "just a slob like one of us" makes
l'homme moyen sensuel feel that he's wearing oddly matched socks.

Whereas like many of my relatives, for you, society is obdurate, a
wall you cannot scale: a second nature in Adorno's sense. I am
intimately familiar with the lower middle class psyche that results
and that predominates on the Internet.

It is one of very sour grapes, for having started out presuming
itself, like Robert Crumb's Mister Sensitive, a Beautiful Soul meant
to be Culled Out, it finds, after repeated attempts to climb this wall

"Wondrous high, and covered with serpent shapes"

(the Wanderer) he is persuaded that anyone he knows shall be likewise
held down, by force if necessary, in the phenomenon of the delegation
of domination to the dominated noted by my fat pal Adorno.

The very real corruption of this block inverts itself into its worship
as necessity.

You're a joke. www.lamma.com.HK is a joke. Granola Eater is a sick
joke, and as a community, Lamma Island needs a daily or weekly
newspaper to counteract the effect of that site. Even a Murdoch paper
would be better.

I was asked to desist from my prolix analyses of why you were a dork
last fall out of compassion, but as a joke, as a poppet, you seemed so
incapable of any in return I did not. But in a sense when I left I did
so to give you a break.

You seem to be a glutton for punishment.

You know, it's occured to me that I don't need to waste my time
setting up a web site such as www.lammaDotHKDotComSucks.com.HK. I can
simply create a usenet group in which I could charmingly rattle on ad
infinitum about Lamma affairs. That would really piss the admin off.
The fact is that I am aware that he's had serious health problems and
the fact is I stopped emailing him about his broken promise to keep
discussions of me off the site in view of these health problems.

Anyway, nice talking to you. You may sit next to me on the ferry any
time you like and discuss this further.

On May 9, 9:59*am, Chris McDonald <ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
That's correct, thank you. I'm not anonymous and I post in good faith.
That's approximately correct, Chris. Enlightenment, my fat pal Adorno
reminds us, is simply another survival mechanism. Lacking legal tender
I have striven to the best of my ability to become an authority on a
number of things, and I appreciate the chance, I really do, to learn
where I'm wrong.

Which is why you waste my time when you don't actually show me wrong,
only play games about personalities.

On May 11, 12:48*am, moi <r...@invalid.address.org> wrote:
There's a figure-ground effect here.

Heathfield (and if necessary I will prove this in a court of law)
snidely enters conversations, selects his mark, and then diverts
technical conversations into discussions of the defects of character
of the mark in such a way that anything the mark says is immediately
disbelieved.

When people respond in a straight-forward, manly fashion to this
treatment, castrated and post-feminist men here get the willies and
start feeling the anger.

You don't have to feel it it is in my words. This ng is a waste of
time because Richard Heathfield is running it as his own mad fiefdom.

spinoza1111 said:

<snip>

If you knew anything about programming, you'd know that the above has no
single meaning. For example, in C it is a constraint violation requiring a
diagnostic message and probably halting compilation. In C++, its meaning
depends on how you overload << within the context of the expression (which
you must if you are to avoid the constraint violation).

No point. You make so many, after all.

<nonsense snipped>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

spinoza1111 said:

<snip>
We've showed you wrong lots of times. You never seem to notice, though.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:25 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:


Since you admit that Lessig didn't invite you at all, it's moot.


In other words, you were on a mailing list.
Well done.
Will you be telling us of your close personal relationships with
Nigerian princes next?



You reveal so much here.
Experienced writers and editors tell you what is wrong with the way
you write, yet you insist that they are all motivated by envy of you,
and fear that you "make them look bad". Which you do, by association,
not for the reasons you imagine.

And everyone for the next 40 years who tells you the same thing is
also just envious.

What a pathetic self-deceiving, and self-destructive, delusion.

.... Incoherent self-serving bullshit deleted....

On May 11, 4:33*pm, Qwertyioup <Qwertyi...@none.com> wrote:
...and this scares you who live in fear. Despite the fact that the
admin wanted you to meet me and iron out the problems, you not only
refused to do so, you denied your online identity when I briefly and
unthreateningly asked if you were identical to the online Rocket Boy.

You're scared that your employer might find anything "wrong" with
you.

Of course, there are things wrong with all of us. You probably are an
inadequate editor since you don't have any enthusiasm for content. My
writing sometimes is over-elaborate.

I'd say that this fear is often warranted because we are being put
under surveillance. I would suggest that MEN would respond in two
ways. One is by using this gift of freedom of speech, freely. The
other is by not attacking a person unnecessarily and only in response
to a previous personal attack, since these attacks endanger peoples'
standing in the community and the harmony of the community.

I can give you a referral to a very good psychotherapist and life
coach who you can speak to long-distance in order to help you with
your living problems, which are causing you to harm yourself and
others, by addictively and from concealment cause malicious harm to
others.
Alan, the problem was that my BeeGee clone friends weren't experienced
editors, any more than you are, in spite of the apparent fact that you
are some sort of subeditor, any more than your boss is in all
probability, any more than my supervisor was at Princeton.

People in the lower middle class never encounter "experienced writers
and editors" because it's too exhausting for actual members of the
elite to manage them, therefore they deal, in front of the Wanderer's
"wondrous high" walls, with copies of reproductions of the ersatz in
the corporate system.

Instead, other subalterns speak hypothetically of what might happen if
their interlocutor should encounter Power, even as my friend's factory
manager in Stalin's Soviet Union warned him not to wear a beret, not
on his own agency or behalf but as part of a network of domination.

Sure, my editor at The Roosevelt Torch, as well as my tech editor at
Apress, did say that my roughs were overlong. At the same time, the
student editor said he'd rather have something we could cut down,
whereas the problem with the BeeGee clones was that they strained like
toddlers on the potty to produce a single coherent sentence.

I shall now leave posting here and return to my software work, and I
shall return perhaps in three weeks to check in. It has been most
illuminating to read the persecution of Navia.

Alan, I was reading Paul Theroux' essay "The Moving Target". About my
age, he's traveled, and ran, and kayaked all over the world, and like
me, when he runs, or kayaks, or cycles in the USA, he's a target.

Fat people drive by him and they call him faggot and worse, just as I
was attacked when cycling to Huntley IL in 1966.

Theroux, correctly, says that in the USA and in cultures influenced by
the USA, there's a lot of people whose identity has been swallowed up
by a relationship in which they are a joke, and a job at which they
feel secretly inadequate.

When they see somebody running, or kayaking, or writing a compiler, or
drawing figuratively or climbing Mt Stenhouse, they can't stand the
fact of their inertia.

The ape comes out.

You are following me like a screeching ape in the jungle for this
reason.

But that's an insult to the apes, isn't it.

Good-bye. Stay out of my seat.

spinoza1111 said:

<snip>

Promises, promises.

For those who don't read comp.lang.c, this "persecution" consists of
agreeing with Jacob Navia's own claim that he didn't write lcc-win32 from
scratch.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On Sun, 11 May 2008 02:04:10 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:




It scares me because it shows you're delusional.



How many times must I say, you have the wrong guy.
He denied being "me", because he isn't.
But Nilges is never wrong. So it must be a conmsopiracy.



He doesn't seem to have helped you much.
Or perhaps you would be even more wacky otherwsie, hard as that is to
contemplate.


1) No, Im not Alan, not amtter how many times you claim it. And As for
your colleagues at Princeton, obviously thay were right on the
bvutton.

Lots of people do this on Lamma. No one else needs to beat their
chests about it and claim how masculine they ar for walking up a
fuckling 390 meterre hill, or how artisitc for doodling on a napkin.

Itl;

Please ignore previous message, sent while incomplete.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sun, 11 May 2008 02:04:10 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
<spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:


It scares me because it shows you're delusional.
And it's sensible to be in fear of an unbalanced frothing lunatic.

How many times must I say, you have the wrong guy.
He denied being "me", because he isn't.
But Nilges is never wrong. So it must be a conspiracy.

He doesn't seem to have helped you much.
Or perhaps you would be even more wacky otherwise, hard as that is to
contemplate.

No, I'm not Alan, not matter how many times you claim it. And as for
your colleagues at Princeton, obviously they were right on the button.
But 40 years of having your work rejected hasn't taught you anything.

Lots of people do this on Lamma. No one else needs to beat their
chests about it and claim how masculine they are for walking up a
fucking 1000 foot hill, or how artistic for doodling on a napkin.
People aren't intimidated by your "achievements". They're unimpressed
and bored at the way you go on and on about every little thing you've
done and noteworthy person you sent an email to.

No, for the reason that you keep libelling people I know in various
forums.
If you confined yourself to recounting fairy tales about how important
you are, and all the important people you are close personal friends
with, I would be very happy to ignore you.
Keep demonising people on Lamma, I'll keep calling you on your lies.

"spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dcc2a48f-786f-41f7-8bfd-e65f55fc401c@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

[...]

Yet another installment of the Nilge-ina Monologues ...

"spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dcc2a48f-786f-41f7-8bfd-e65f55fc401c@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 11, 4:33 pm, Qwertyioup <Qwertyi...@none.com> wrote:
<snipped>

I see you got the same old tired horses galloping around again. You are
fabulous, simply fabulous.

In article <9c6a93bb-0c07-4a2e-9f7d-260b48c859d2@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, spinoza1111@yahoo.com says...
You _thought_ the professor was encouraging you...but maybe the bastard wasjust setting you up!

Mike