Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > [OFF-TOPIC] Animosity on the part of Mr Richard Heathfield

Reply
Thread Tools

[OFF-TOPIC] Animosity on the part of Mr Richard Heathfield

 
 
Kenny McCormack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Anthony Fremont <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Jack Klein wrote:
>> The word "racism" did not appear in Richard's post. So he did not
>> accuse you, in any way, shape, or form of racism. So your statement
>> to the contrary is either an error or a deliberate lie, an attempt to
>> distort his position.

>
>That is simply not true. He may not haved used that specific word in the
>original post, but his intent was clear enough. At any rate, Richard
>directly referred to him as a racist in this very thread. I'm not taking
>sides, but you appear to be the one distorting things.


Jack Klein being a lying sack of crap isn't exactly news.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008
On Dec 14, 6:26*am, Jack Klein <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The word "racism" did not appear in Richard's post. *So he did not
> accuse you, in any way, shape, or form of racism.




You're correct, he did not use the word "racism" is his most recent
attack, but he has in at least three previous attacks.



> *So your statement
> to the contrary is either an error or a deliberate lie, an attempt to
> distort his position.




Do a Google search for posts containing "racism OR racist" by "Richard
Heathfield". Prove me wrong.



> Richard quoted an earlier post of yours, word-for-word. *You have
> verified not only that this constituted an accurate quotation, but
> also that you still feel exactly the same, and stand behind the words.
> You were not misquoted or taken out of context.




Every person has their good days and bad days, and the hope is that
the good days greatly outnumber the bad days.

Mr Heathfield has chosen to taken a post from one of my bad days and
replicate it (unprovoked) here in order to tarnish my character. He
also goes on to falsely call me racist. That's character-assassination
regardless of what your precious wiki tells you.

It would be very easy to go through Mr Heathfield's old posts and
create a "super post" of quotes from him that would tarnish others'
view of him, particularly in his exchanges with Mr Navia where he has
shown his true colours as being an impolite hostile man. Compiling
such a "super post" would be character-assassination regardless of
whether I "misquoted him or took him out of context.



> It is hard to see how Richard's post can be classified as an attempt
> at character assassination




He posted an off-topic unprovoked post dissuading others from
discussing with me.



> It specifically tries to draw an "untrue picture" of RH by falsely
> claiming that he accused you of racism.




Again, do that Google Groups search to prove me wrong.



> Then we have your patently false statement "his malicious
> behaviour of attempting to character-assassinate people", for which
> you point to a post that did no such thing.




His post clearly changes the subject of the discussion for the sole
purpose of tarnish others' view of me.



> In your attempt to defend your against a charge of racism that was not
> made in the post you complaining about, you attempt to redefine the
> word as meaningless.




You too seem to have a cop-out definition of racism. I'm curious, if
the group I criticised had been white, would it have been OK to
criticise them (on a more suitable forum of course)?



> I am afraid your rhetorical skills are rather lacking.




I wasn't aware I had any, I'd have to consult a encyclopedia to tell
you what "rhetoric" is.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008
On Dec 14, 7:57*am, Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> No, he said he had a racist attitude. You may want to carefully consider
> the difference between the two.
>
> Consider:
> George W Bush shows an attitude of stupidity.
> George W Bush is stupid.




No, Mr Heathfield clearly called me racist several times in several
different posts. Later he brought the topic up again unprovoked in an
unrelated thread.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008
On Dec 14, 9:17 am, Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Richard shouldn't keep dredging it up either.

>
> Is it then your opinion that racist attitudes should be considered
> acceptable after a token protest?




Mr Heathfield is one of many people here that have a "politically
correct" definition of "racism". Such persons are unable to construct
their own view of what "racism" is, out of fear of being branded
racist themselves. This is not uncommon in people of his generation,
but fortunately younger generations such as myself have a less guarded
definition of racism.

I criticised a particular group of people, and Mr Heathfield
immediately thought "Those people are of a different race, so surely
that must be racism".

This "politically correct" view of "racism" does harm. Recently on
British TV, there was a reality show called "Big Brother" in which
about a dozen contestants of different backgrounds were put into a
house, and their experiences together were filmed. The black people
got on just fine with the white people, and vice versa. On one of
days, a black girl was joking with a white girl, and the white girl
used said the word "nigger" when joking with the black girl, the two
of them laughed. No offense was intended, and none was taken. However,
the producers of "Big Brother", being politically correct, called the
white girl in for a publicly aired interview and questioned her use of
the word "nigger". The white girl replied honestly saying that she was
joking, and indeed she was joking, and the joke was taken well by the
black person, but the producers kicked her off the show.

In an attempt to be politically correct, the producers actually
incited racial hatred themselves.

Mr Heathfield has a warped old-fashioned definition of racism, and he
wrongly labeling me as racist because I criticised a group of people
who were of a different race than me. He clings to an old-aged climate
in which different races cannot criticise each other for fear of being
branded racist, and this in itself incites racial hatred.

Different races cannot live in harmony with each other if they are
afraid to criticise each other for fear of people suggesting that the
criticism is based on race. In fact, different races should be able to
joke with each other, tease each other. I've had black friends, but
I've never been close enough to any of them to jokingly call them a
"nigger". Being able to do so would have been indicative of a very
strong friendship.

Note also, Mr Heathfield has yet to explain why he interrupted a
technical discussion to inform everyone that I am "racist".
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Bacarisse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
<snip>
> Mr Heathfield has chosen to taken a post from one of my bad days


It was more than one day. The thread continued and you continued to
post comments that, frankly, made my jaw drop.

> and
> replicate it (unprovoked) here in order to tarnish my character. He
> also goes on to falsely call me racist. That's character-assassination
> regardless of what your precious wiki tells you.


That is surely the point. If the quoted remarks are an accurate
reflection of your character then you have no complaint. If they are
not, why have you not backed off from them? In all the comments you
have posted on this topic I have not seen you say that anything you
said was wrong or inappropriate. You apologised for using the group
to vent, but not for anything you said.

You can sort this out with a few words. Do you stand by the words
that were quoted (and similar remarks that I won't quote that you made
in the subsequent discussion) or do you wish you had not made them? I
stand by your right to say things I find offencive, but I want to know
if I am judging your views correctly. Review the thread of Jun 15th
and 16th and decide if you still agree with what your wrote or if you
now cringe when you read it. You talk about it being a bad day, but
you don't seem to have changed your mind about any of it.

--
Ben.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008
On Dec 14, 10:47*am, Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Are you saying that the quoted paragraph is no longer an accurate
> reflection of your views? If so, fine - we'll call that an apology and
> move on.




I have apologised already for my rant.


> But if it is still an accurate reflection of your views, then my
> point remains. And it is you, not me, who have tarnished your character.



No character has been tarnished, there has only been attempted
character-assassinations. Actually no I take that back, you have
tarnished your own character by interrupting a technical discussion to
inform people that you think I'm racist. Your hypocrisy removes all
credibility from your accusations. You have no explanation for why you
interrupted a technical discussion to call a person racist.



> Hardly false. You have ascribed negative characteristics to a group of
> people identified only by their ethnicity ("Roma gypsies"). Note that
> Romany gypsies (and Irish travellers) are defined by UK law (Race
> Relations Act 1976) as racial groups.




Law is king, is it? Up until 1990 is was illegal to be homosexual in
Ireland, so I suppose if you were homophobic before 1990 then you were
doing your country a service. I don't need official definitions of
race, because there is no suitable definition. Are English and Irish
people of the same race? Yes and no, and no, and yes, and yes, and no,
and yes.



> > That's character-assassination

>
> No, it isn't.




You are laughable. Again you fail to explain why you interrupted a
technical discussion to call me racist. You are a joke of a man and
you are tripping up over your own morals.


> Even if I were into character assassination (which I'm not),
> I'd be way too late, because you committed character suicide some time
> ago.




If you believe that to be true, then that's fine, your entitled to
your own opinion. It's a different kettle of fish altogether however
to interrupt a technical discussion to call a person racist.



> Of course, it's not too late to get a clue and begin to understand
> that people are, first and foremost, individuals - and our assessment of
> them should be based not on things about themselves over which they have
> no control (e.g. ethnicity, gender), but on the way that they behave.



Of course, you're right. But the people I criticise have the choice of
changing their clothes, of removing their gold teeth, and of tending
to their hygiene and appearance.



> To
> claim that all members of an ethnic group behave in the same way and have
> the same character failings is not only racist, but clearly ludicrous.




You are right that there may be a very small proportion of people in
the original group I criticised that might not behave as the group
does. If this small proportion wanted to better themselves, they'd
have to separate from the group.



> You can try it if you wish, but please remember to exclude any articles
> which I have subsequently retracted.




I do not like to tease people about their religion, but I feel I must
bring a point up. Many people fall victim to a religion, I for one
fell victim to Catholicism having being raised in Ireland, but
thankfully it wasn't force on me hard enough to have a lasting
detrimental effect. I do not know Mr Heathfield's upbringing, I do not
blame him for being Christian, nor do I hold him accountable for his
religious beliefs. Mr Heathfield claims to be a devout Christian, and
the religion of Christianity has a thing called "Confession". What
"Confession" means is that you can commit a "sin" and then later
assuage yourself of any guilt by "confessing the sin".

What this does is foster an attitude of never taking responsibility
for what you do, because no matter what you do, you can go to
confession. You can "retract" anything, as Mr Heathfield puts it.

I myself live my life based on the premises of being kind, caring and
compassionate to other people. I live my life every day in an attempt
to better myself. If I screw up, I don't head to a temple to assuage
myself; instead, I try to make up for what I did. If the original
group I criticised were to suddenly better themselves, I would issue
an apology for what I said, and I'd send them a present in good will.

Regarding "retracting" what I said, well I picked the wrong forum for
saying what I said, and I have apologised for that.



> The tone of my exchanges with Mr Navia is more or less proportional to the
> extent to which he adheres to group conventions.




So you have issued yourself with a license to be impolite to those who
don't "adhere to group conventions". Wake up, there's no group
convention here, there's many many people on this newsgroup and
there's a high proportion of trolls (yourself included). Just
yesterday, myself and Ian Collins disagreed on whether it was OK to
take advantage of "Discussion Threading", and I maintain that
Discussion Threading has revolutionised internet discussion.


> In other
> words, my attitude towards him is based not on his ethnicity but on his
> actions.



Again, I will reiterate that I identify the "aforementioned group" by
the clothes they wear, by their gold teeth, and by their lack of
personal hygiene. All of these things are voluntary.



> No, not really. If it were a balanced summary of my posting style, why
> would it be character assassination? And if it weren't, it would have no
> value anyway.



Who said anything about "balanced"? Is it "balanced" to interrupt a
technical discussion to call a person racist?



> What is it about your character that you think I've assassinated? If you no
> longer hold the cited views, say so. If you still hold those views, what
> character is there to assassinate?



You are entitled to your own opinion of me. If you believe, in all
your Christian wisdom, that I have "no character to assassinate", then
that's fine. It's a different kettle of fish however to interrupt a
technical discussion to call me racist.



> No, the purpose of the post was to /remind/ people that you have made
> racist statements in this group which you have not retracted. The tarnish
> is all yours.




So you interrupted a technical discussion to remind people that you
think I'm racist. Why did you do that? Why should people have to know
that you think I'm racist? Why should a technical discussion be
interrupted to let everyone know that Mr Richard Heathfield thinks
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe is racist? Why should an off-topic rant I posted many
months ago be reproduced today by you?



> Any attack on a group identified solely by their ethnicity is a racist
> attack, whether the race in question is gypsies, blacks, whites, pinks,
> blues, greens, Chinese, Russians, Poles, Australians, Germans, Colombians,
> Tanzanians, or Icelanders.



You're correct, that *would* be racism (or ethnicism). Take a member
of the original group I criticised, give them clean clothes, let them
use your shower, give them a job, then I won't be prejudiced against
them. You haven't changed their ethnicity, yet somehow my prejudice
would disappear... hmm that kind of sort of suggests that their
ethnicity plays no part in my prejudice. It sort of kind of suggests
that my prejudice is based on the clothes they wear, their hygiene,
how they treat their kids.


> People are, first and foremost, people, not mere group members. We

should
> take each on his or her own merits, not tar them all with one enormous
> brush.



OK so then you think there's such a thing as a good Nazi.

I myself don't believe that there are good Nazis. In order for such a
"good Nazi" to be truly good, they would have to separate from Nazism.

"Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are", as it was once
so aptly put.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008
On Dec 14, 11:19 am, Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I don't agree. My working definition of racism is simply this: an attitude
> (or statement or claim) that ascribes negative characteristics to members
> of an ethnic group by virtue of that group membership.



I find that definition ambiguous. It depends what you mean by "group
membership". For instance, if I stop speaking English and stop
speaking Irish, if I wear Lao clothes and marry a Lao woman, then am I
still a member of the "Irish ethnic group"? If so, the this "group
membership" is INvoluntary.

However, if by stopping speaking English and Irish, by wearing Lao
clothing and marrying a Lao woman, I am no longer a member of the
"Irish ethnic group", then this "group membership" is Voluntary.

I believe group membership to be Voluntary.

With regard to the original group I criticised, I do not blame a child
for being born into that environment. If the child were to grow up and
move on and distance themselves from the original group, then I would
consider them to have abandoned their "group membership".

I do have prejudice against people who belong to particular groups.
The group is something separate from their race however. You could
have a splinter group of good people form the original group I
criticised, and even though the splinter group would be of the same
race, I would not hold prejudice against them.

There's a certain group of people here in Laos that "do stuff like
sell diamonds". These people, coincidentally, all happen to have a
particular skin colour. If a 5-year-old Lao child avoids people of
this particular skin colour, are they racist? Furthermore, if a Lao
parent neglects to tell their child to be weary of people of a
particular skin colour, then are they upholding the virtues of
humanity, or are they being negligent in their child care? I for one
don't want my child brought home to me in a box.


> For example, the
> belief that Italians are cowardly in warfare is a racist belief. No doubt
> some Italians /are/ cowardly in warfare, but this is irrelevant - the
> cowardice and nationality are orthogonal; in any ethnic group you'll get
> some cowardly people and some brave people.




Company X manufacturers mobile phones. 99% of their phones don't last
longer than a month. Company X makes **** phones. Does that sound
fair?

If an overwhelming proportion of members of a particular group bear a
particular attribute, then it's OK to attribute that attribute to the
group. Kenyans are good runners. Nigerians villagers are musclely.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "The Irish are a pack
of alchoes". I lived in Ireland, I grew up there, I know that most
people there will have a pint or two every day. Here in Laos, I
occassionally get introduced to people as "Here's Tomás, the Irish guy
I was telling you about". My response: "Yes, I'm Irish.... (with a
smile) but I don't drink".


> Is this a retraction of your earlier racist statement? That is, are you now
> prepared to accept that the characteristics you ascribed to Roma gypsies
> actually apply only to some of them, and also to many people of other
> ethnic groups?



Correct. However, in this case, "some" is an overwhelming majority.


> > Note also, Mr Heathfield has yet to explain why he interrupted a
> > technical discussion to inform everyone that I am "racist".

>
> Wrong. I have already explained that. Note that I did not interrupt the
> discussion - the whole point of threaded discussions is that *nobody* can
> interrupt *any* discussion.



Bullshit. Ian Collins asked me "Who said what?", and you took the
opportunity to express your opinion that I am racist. You have no
explanation for this. The only explanation is that what you did was
wrong, and that you did it out of sadistic impulse.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008
On Dec 14, 9:53*am, Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > No. *What racist attitude did Tomas _recently_ display that you were
> > protesting?

>
> (a) earlier this year seems pretty recent to me;



Daddy: Son, have you see my car keys?
Son: Yes Daddy, I saw them in on the sofa.
(Daddy goes in to check the sofa, and comes back)
Daddy: They're not there, when did you see them?
Son: Eleven days ago.

It's now December. December minus June is about 6 months. 6 months is
pretty god damn long time. 6 months ago I lived in a different
country. 6 months ago I spoke a different language.

But wait wait... we're missing the point. "Recent-ism" has nothing to
do with this. Even if it had been 3 days ago, or 2 hours ago that I
said what I said, that still wouldn't warrant interrupting a technical
discussion to call a person racist.



> (b) the time is irrelevant, surely? It is clear that he stands by his views
> *right now*, and yet here we are, offering him freebie tech tips. I don't
> want any part of that.



This is your rationale? This is the why you interrupt a technical
discussion to call a person racist?! You are a joke of a Christian and
a joke of a man.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Old Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008
On Dec 14, 3:35*pm, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Using the term "racist" implies that their race is in factor in my
> prejudice against them. If a white person were to do the things that
> these people do,


Lol, you are so racist you don't even see that
you are. Your use of "them" and "these people"
shows it. You have pre-judged people you
have never met and don't know anything about.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Kenny McCormack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Old Wolf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Dec 14, 3:35*pm, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Using the term "racist" implies that their race is in factor in my
>> prejudice against them. If a white person were to do the things that
>> these people do,

>
>Lol, you are so racist you don't even see that
>you are. Your use of "them" and "these people"
>shows it. You have pre-judged people you
>have never met and don't know anything about.


And they say "policial correctness" is dead...

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Animosity on the part of Mr Richard Heathfield Anonymous C Programming 6 12-21-2008 01:34 AM
Animosity on the part of Mr Richard Heathfield George Orwell C Programming 1 12-15-2008 07:39 PM
Animosity on the part of Mr Richard Heathfield George Orwell C Programming 0 12-14-2008 08:10 AM
Animosity on the part of Mr Richard Heathfield Anonymous C Programming 0 12-14-2008 07:58 AM
Animosity on the part of Mr Richard Heathfield Borked Pseudo Mailed C Programming 0 12-14-2008 04:37 AM



Advertisments