Mr Richard D. Benham and Mr Scott Horne have been served with notice on at least four (4) different occassions with our demand to cease and desist their scandalous publications and their harassing malconduct. They have been served with notice to cease and desist posting information of a personal nature about, concerning or relating to Harold W. Vadney III and to remove all references to Harold W. Vadney III. Benham and Horne have been served with express notice that Harold W. Vadney III asserts his author's rights and copyright protection over all writings by him and refuses to grant license to Richard D. Benham or Scott Horne or any other third party to publish or reproduce any information or document about, concerning or relating to Harold W. Vadney III without his written permission.
As of this date, Richard D. Benham and Scott Horne have refused to comply with previous demands to cease and to desist.
This is our 4th demand to cease and desist and by its publication shall be deemed served upon Richard D. Benham (an Australian national) and Scott Horne (Montréal, PQ, Canada; expatriate US American, recent Canadian national) and furthermore shall be deemed served upon any person associated with Benham or Horne, including but not by limitation Joan Ross of New Baltimore, New York and John Luckacovic of New Baltimore New York, persons known to be associated at least with Mr Scott Horne.
If you have any question about the seriousness of refusing to comply with this notification, please consult an attorney.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Trolls' Loneliness and Resort to Fantasy ...
Trolls and their sockpuppets are chronically lonely people who, because of social rejection and their being deprived of intimacy, engage in bouts of fantasy that would seem irrational to the normal person. The normal person who functions productively in society, who is capable of giving and receiving intimacy, who loves and is loved in return, who is appreciated by his community, who is comfortable in his skin does not find a necessity to strike out, to attempt to destroy, to find respite in a fantasy world he has found it necessary to create for himself because, literally, he has nowhere else to go!
An obvious characteristic of our illustrative examples, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, and now Joan Ross, is repressed rage and their perverse way of expressing it: random, irrational contempt for others. We have personal knowledge of this phenomenon in Joan Ross and it's common knowledge in her community. Recently, she has been lampooned for her comments (on tape, no less) at a January Town Board meeting. Her rage and irrationality, vulgarity, profanity and detachment from reality became hardcopy record at her deposition, where, under oath, she was tangled in so many outright lies and deceptions her attorney had to call her out several times to counsel her. Her foul mouth was an embarassment to everyone (similar to Benham's and Horne's language).
Is it any wonder that Scott Horne corresponds with her and has visited her in New Baltimore and even visited with co-defendant John Luckacovic. We know all about that little troll-conference.
Here too, if you let these hateful, lonely, depraved creatures talk, they'll talk themselves into self-destruction, or they'll return to the dark, cold, lonliness of the underworld from which they emerge, similar to the folkloric abode of the mythological trolls, their prototypes.
The other defendants deposed at about the time Joan Ross was deposed behaved similarly to Ross in terms of bad faith, deception and getting tangled in their own fabrications but generally the element of vulgarity and profanity were generally absent in their testimony.
Now, referring to Richard Benham's and Scott Horne's recent writings, we find all of the elements discussed above and in previous postings on this blog. (We won't repeat them here for the sake of brevity).
In a short piece at: http://www.eons.com/groups/topic/563235 the author writes:
"Internet trolls have been described as "sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful." They typically possess a poorly developed set of social skills and have difficulty viewing their actions from the perspectives of their victims. They may be callous to the fact that they are harming real people, instead viewing Internet users as "digital abstractions". They may thus feel no remorse for harm they cause, and in fact may judge their own level of "success" by the amount of that harm. Most are impervious to rationale, mature arguments against their wares, and will protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed if ever there is an attempt to call them on their trolling."
At the TeamTechnology site we find a very accurate description of Benham's, Horne's and Ross' well known behavior:
"people who have the psychological need to feel good by making others feel bad.
This is a sort of "psycho troll", whose deception involves deceiving themselves as well as others. Such people may use their real names on the internet, and they may not even realise that they are "trolling" because it is all subconscious." http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm
Just as an aside, there's an interesting "psychological" analysis of the Interntet troll personality at http://groups.google.com/group/sci.psychology.personality/browse_thread/thread/5a9e004e92a657e8
Trolls and their sockpuppets are real and, as we know from Richard Benham's, Scott Horne's and Joan Ross' antics, are active in our midst. Knowing that there is an enemy, where it is, how it's operating, its logistics is 99% of the battle. Armed with that intelligence, we can let the enemy provide the rest and they inevitably manage to do that (see Benham's recent posts to his blog).
Trolls, their sockpuppets, their manipulators--as illustrated by Richard Benham, Scott Horne and Joan Ross, our real-life illustrative examples, are uniformly self-destructive; as when dealing with any troll or vermin, the key is maintain self-control, let them perfect their self-destruction, sit back and watch the fireworks.
An obvious characteristic of our illustrative examples, Richard Benham, Scott Horne, and now Joan Ross, is repressed rage and their perverse way of expressing it: random, irrational contempt for others. We have personal knowledge of this phenomenon in Joan Ross and it's common knowledge in her community. Recently, she has been lampooned for her comments (on tape, no less) at a January Town Board meeting. Her rage and irrationality, vulgarity, profanity and detachment from reality became hardcopy record at her deposition, where, under oath, she was tangled in so many outright lies and deceptions her attorney had to call her out several times to counsel her. Her foul mouth was an embarassment to everyone (similar to Benham's and Horne's language).
Is it any wonder that Scott Horne corresponds with her and has visited her in New Baltimore and even visited with co-defendant John Luckacovic. We know all about that little troll-conference.
Here too, if you let these hateful, lonely, depraved creatures talk, they'll talk themselves into self-destruction, or they'll return to the dark, cold, lonliness of the underworld from which they emerge, similar to the folkloric abode of the mythological trolls, their prototypes.
The other defendants deposed at about the time Joan Ross was deposed behaved similarly to Ross in terms of bad faith, deception and getting tangled in their own fabrications but generally the element of vulgarity and profanity were generally absent in their testimony.
Now, referring to Richard Benham's and Scott Horne's recent writings, we find all of the elements discussed above and in previous postings on this blog. (We won't repeat them here for the sake of brevity).
In a short piece at: http://www.eons.com/groups/topic/563235 the author writes:
"Internet trolls have been described as "sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful." They typically possess a poorly developed set of social skills and have difficulty viewing their actions from the perspectives of their victims. They may be callous to the fact that they are harming real people, instead viewing Internet users as "digital abstractions". They may thus feel no remorse for harm they cause, and in fact may judge their own level of "success" by the amount of that harm. Most are impervious to rationale, mature arguments against their wares, and will protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed if ever there is an attempt to call them on their trolling."
At the TeamTechnology site we find a very accurate description of Benham's, Horne's and Ross' well known behavior:
"people who have the psychological need to feel good by making others feel bad.
This is a sort of "psycho troll", whose deception involves deceiving themselves as well as others. Such people may use their real names on the internet, and they may not even realise that they are "trolling" because it is all subconscious." http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm
Just as an aside, there's an interesting "psychological" analysis of the Interntet troll personality at http://groups.google.com/group/sci.psychology.personality/browse_thread/thread/5a9e004e92a657e8
Trolls and their sockpuppets are real and, as we know from Richard Benham's, Scott Horne's and Joan Ross' antics, are active in our midst. Knowing that there is an enemy, where it is, how it's operating, its logistics is 99% of the battle. Armed with that intelligence, we can let the enemy provide the rest and they inevitably manage to do that (see Benham's recent posts to his blog).
Trolls, their sockpuppets, their manipulators--as illustrated by Richard Benham, Scott Horne and Joan Ross, our real-life illustrative examples, are uniformly self-destructive; as when dealing with any troll or vermin, the key is maintain self-control, let them perfect their self-destruction, sit back and watch the fireworks.
We have the advantage because we have maintained dignity, self-respect and have not resorted to the impotent tactics employed by our trolls and sockpuppets, Benham, Horne and Ross.
A key element in troll-psychology is the predatorial need to control, to manipulate their victims, something that has not happened here; it must be driving them absolutely nutz!
Post scriptum:
- Is it my imagination or can I hear Benham's, Horne's and Ross' keyboards clicking away, dashing off those e-mails, sharing those troll-insights ... troll brother, troll sister what do we do now, what can we say ... rest assured, they'll come up with something depraved.
- Homeowner's insurance may pick up the tab for defense and representation in the first lawsuit but watch how quickly it'll drop them in the second lawsuit!
- Joan Ross' partner, Robert Ross, seems to live a separate life and doesn't appear to have much control or interest--despite the fact that Joan Ross' activities implicate him--he's an accessory but why on Earth doesn't he do something to control his troll-wife? As Joan Ross puts it, 'he minds his own business.' By any standard this means a serious lack of cojones or absolute stupidity on his part; doesn't he realize that having a knowledge of Joan Ross' malconduct he is implicated. Or is she that sneaky and he so oblivious? I'll have to post a picture of the two ... that may shed some light on the question.
- Here's an entertaining discourse on trolls: http://www.themartialist.com/pecom/fieldguidetotrolls.htm
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Let's just be clear ...
Since Mr Richard Benham and Mr Scott Horne are all over the shop now, let's just recap some important facts:
- First of all, I have never spoken to or met Richard D. Benham or Scott Horne so it's rather unclear how they can claim to know so much about me (legally, they don't have any access to personal information);
- Richard D. Benham has already been found to have forged his e-mail address and to have fraudulenty obtained information, what's to stop him from forging other so-called evidence and perpetrating other frauds?
- Scott Horne has already been thrown off at least two professional translators' sites for malconduct and has been warned numerous of his misconduct by other translators;
- Scott Horne is deeply involved with the unlawful activities of the defendants in a serious lawsuit in New York;
- Joan Ross has refused to answer questions under oath at her deposition about her relationship and communications with Scott Horn--she wanted to avoid incrimating herself;
- Richard D. Benham and Scott Horne seem to have an awful lot of "personal" information on Harold W. Vadney III but Horne lives in Montréal and Benham claims to be in Europe so either they are throwing out red herrings again or ... well if they would name their information source they could possible have some credibility;
- I am suing Joan Ross (New Baltimore, NY), John Luckacovic (New Baltimore, NY), Richard Bleezarde (Ravena, NY) and Bleezarde Publishing Co., Inc. (Ravena, NY); they must defend against the complaint; they are going on trial not I;
- We already know Scott Horne was Joan Ross' guest and that he visited John Luckacovic in New Baltimore, defendants have already provided that information;
- We already know that Scott Horne has an established pattern of malconduct;
- We aleady know that Richard Benham has hidden behind several identities, including the pseudonym "Dina" on the Institute of Linguists discussion forums;
- We already know Richard Benham and Scott Horne have repeatedly lied or fabricated information;
- We already know that no credible journalist is interested in anything Richard Benham or Scott Horne have to say since both have been exposed themselves as being unstable and unreliable by their rants and diatribes;
- Joan Ross, when questioned about her relationship and contacts with Scott Horne, took the Fifth Amendment protection to avoid incriminating herself (Wonder why?);
- Richard Benham and Scott Horne are being investigated by several parties, not I;
- Richard Benham and Scott Horne were banished from Bravenet.com and their ridiculous Independent Lingusts Discussion Forum was deleted because of its violation of the site's rules, it is indeed "defunct" as Benham likes to say, but that's not the whole story;
- Scott Horne has been banned from at least two sites for professional translators;
- Since I requested the Indonesian consulate to look into Benham's defamatory Internet abuse, he has all of a sudden reappeared in France -- he says (Wonder why?);
- Benham and Horne have been wildly casting red herrings all over the place (Wonder why?) as to their present locations;
- We already know that Richard Benham lied to obtain personal information that was incorrect and partial and he is now being investigated; He has been asked by the concerned provider to produce the signed release he said he had but has not done so (Wonder why?);
- The Chartered Institute of Linguists is investigating Richard Benham's malconduct;
- The Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol are processing requests for information relating to Scott Horne's border crossings;
- Richard Benham and Scott Horne will never again be able to show their faces among translating professionals because they have become pariahs of their own making;
- No one takes Benham or Horne seriously any more;
- Benham and Horne have become mere illustrative examples of Internet evil;
- Benham and Horne have one single value: to become examples of how their kind are prosecuted, they are mere raw material for case law;
- Benham and Horne have, by virtue of their puffery, vulgarity, profanity, ugliness, become our illustrative examples, mere curiosities, exhibits of what Internet slang calls trolls and sockpuppets;
- Benham and Horne have elegantly proved how they can set themselves up for complete and utter moral, professional, social, spiritual, ethical ruin.
And this is a PARTIAL LIST ... need I go on?
The only question I have is what can these individuals possibly hope for now that they have become such despicable caricatures?
The Nature of Cowards
One very obvious characteristic of the troll, the sockpuppet, the Internet abuser and defamer is that they are by nature cowards. They are insipid personalities, angry, ugly hateful beings--hence the troll--that have no morals or ethics and are not ashamed to exhibit those characteristics whenever possible. They are cowards but they are also exhibitionists. They hide, when possible, behind anonymity but when exposed they puff themselves up arrogantly as if they had substance. They are cowards because they lash out from the shadows, in ambush, using innuendo and suggestion but no real daylight attacks. They pose on the one had as a genuine person with principles but then appear as another personality, the sockpuppet. Or they find some lesser being to play off of, a stooge.
They are exhibitionists because they cannot contain themselves; they must be heard, visible, seen, read, revealing, or they cease to exist.
They are more despicable cowards because of their tendency when they are revealed to be inferior and impotent when faced with one in control, a superior, they lash out randomly. When I think of Mr Richard Benham or Mr Scott Horne and their writings I cannot help but think of the cheap thugs who cannot best the hero, protagonist and so threaten his friends, family or children. Thugs, cowards, exhibitionists.
Similar to what Joan Ross, their collaborator in New Baltimore, who named some psychotic behavior after herself in an e-mail to this author: The "Joan Trap" which she describes as her (and apparently Benham's and Horne's, too) tendency to "rip apart every aspect of a person she has a gripe with." Now that's a trio we all will do well to neutralize!
Thugs, cowards have no scruples as we can plainly see in our illustrative examples Benham's and Horne's vulgarity, profanity, small-mindedness but they are, thank the Lord, also exhibitionists and out of control. That's where they find their demise. Like the archetypal exhibitionist who continues his asocial malconduct until he's apprehended, who has no control over his aberrant behavior, who has no self-respect, no self-esteem and so begs to be apprehended, punished, disgraced.
Emotions like hate, anger, self-hate, a self-perception of being ugly, of being unloved, unwanted generates these thugs, cowards, exhibitionists. Like their lives their ends are usually ugly, accompanied by anger and hate, as beings always unloved, unwanted.
What other explanation could there be for such amoral, asocial, psychotic behavior?
They are exhibitionists because they cannot contain themselves; they must be heard, visible, seen, read, revealing, or they cease to exist.
They are more despicable cowards because of their tendency when they are revealed to be inferior and impotent when faced with one in control, a superior, they lash out randomly. When I think of Mr Richard Benham or Mr Scott Horne and their writings I cannot help but think of the cheap thugs who cannot best the hero, protagonist and so threaten his friends, family or children. Thugs, cowards, exhibitionists.
Similar to what Joan Ross, their collaborator in New Baltimore, who named some psychotic behavior after herself in an e-mail to this author: The "Joan Trap" which she describes as her (and apparently Benham's and Horne's, too) tendency to "rip apart every aspect of a person she has a gripe with." Now that's a trio we all will do well to neutralize!
Thugs, cowards have no scruples as we can plainly see in our illustrative examples Benham's and Horne's vulgarity, profanity, small-mindedness but they are, thank the Lord, also exhibitionists and out of control. That's where they find their demise. Like the archetypal exhibitionist who continues his asocial malconduct until he's apprehended, who has no control over his aberrant behavior, who has no self-respect, no self-esteem and so begs to be apprehended, punished, disgraced.
Emotions like hate, anger, self-hate, a self-perception of being ugly, of being unloved, unwanted generates these thugs, cowards, exhibitionists. Like their lives their ends are usually ugly, accompanied by anger and hate, as beings always unloved, unwanted.
What other explanation could there be for such amoral, asocial, psychotic behavior?
ISP Identification and Cooperation
Trolls, sockpuppets, Internet abusers, defamers can all be identified by requesting the cooperation and support of ISPs or their Internet Service Providers. Now that we have been able to identify visitors and where they are, let's give a hearty welcome to our resident lurkers:
Welcome! Richard Benham visiting from Montpellier Languedoc-Roussillon France 194.2.179.122 (NXDOMAIN) (194.2.179.122)
Welcome! Scott Horne visiting from Montreal Quebec Canada bas5-montreal02-1167961382.dsl.bell.ca (69.157.173.38)
Welcome! Joan Ross visiting from Coxsackie New York United States dsl-72-10-204-145.bbr0.cxscny.statetel.com (72.10.204.145)
And Welcome! Is that you JL visiting from Coeymans Hollow New York United States 24-105-203-49.cm.mhcable.com (24.105.203.49)
You've been identified ;)
Welcome! Richard Benham visiting from Montpellier Languedoc-Roussillon France 194.2.179.122 (NXDOMAIN) (194.2.179.122)
Welcome! Scott Horne visiting from Montreal Quebec Canada bas5-montreal02-1167961382.dsl.bell.ca (69.157.173.38)
Welcome! Joan Ross visiting from Coxsackie New York United States dsl-72-10-204-145.bbr0.cxscny.statetel.com (72.10.204.145)
And Welcome! Is that you JL visiting from Coeymans Hollow New York United States 24-105-203-49.cm.mhcable.com (24.105.203.49)
You've been identified ;)
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Trolls and Sockpuppets: Benahm, Horne, Ross
Trolls and sockpuppets ... tube-sockpuppets, too! Keep talking Mr Benham ... We just love it! The three stooges B, H, R should get good ratings this season for slap-stick. It's a fascinating study in morbidity to be able to observe the degradation of the prototypical troll and his sockpuppets, pitiful but fascinating. Reading our illustrative example of the Internet troll's most recent blather one wonders what inane, idiotic fantasies he's going to dredge up next.
It's rather interesting that Wikipedia has a whole section on trolls, sockpuppets and their origins and derivatives. The Internet jargon for Internet abusers and defamers like Benham and Horne and their allies like Ross are so much more descriptive that they are really worth the read. While we were using such terms as Internet abuser, defamer, Benham, and Horne, Wikipedia had already assembled a whole mythology of similar vermin. To our amusement we can now draw the parallels.
Now that Mr Benham is allegedly involved in 'higher education' he's got less time to engage in his mischief...maybe he can now find the time to answer Credentials Inc.'s demands for the fake release(s) he claimed he had when he fraudulently obtained personal information. What?!? Mr Benham doing that? Rather than own up he'd rather claim that everyone else is proffering false documents or fraudulent claims. But in the rantings of the madman the delusions are self-authenticating. Read Benham's writings and make the diagnosis yourself.
Now, if even half of the hundreds of visitors to this blog were to leave a comment, that would be illuminating, wouldn't it? Say a comparison of Benham's and Horne's writings to those found here. Uninterested parties' commentary. That's what we need!
It's rather interesting that Wikipedia has a whole section on trolls, sockpuppets and their origins and derivatives. The Internet jargon for Internet abusers and defamers like Benham and Horne and their allies like Ross are so much more descriptive that they are really worth the read. While we were using such terms as Internet abuser, defamer, Benham, and Horne, Wikipedia had already assembled a whole mythology of similar vermin. To our amusement we can now draw the parallels.
Now that Mr Benham is allegedly involved in 'higher education' he's got less time to engage in his mischief...maybe he can now find the time to answer Credentials Inc.'s demands for the fake release(s) he claimed he had when he fraudulently obtained personal information. What?!? Mr Benham doing that? Rather than own up he'd rather claim that everyone else is proffering false documents or fraudulent claims. But in the rantings of the madman the delusions are self-authenticating. Read Benham's writings and make the diagnosis yourself.
Now, if even half of the hundreds of visitors to this blog were to leave a comment, that would be illuminating, wouldn't it? Say a comparison of Benham's and Horne's writings to those found here. Uninterested parties' commentary. That's what we need!
Richard Benham and P. Scott Horne Served with Notice
Mr Richard D. Benham and Mr Scott Horne have been served with final notice to stop defaming, harassing and illegally using my personal information for illegitimate purpose. Here is the notification text sent to both:
You are hereby served with final notice without waiver to cease and desist using and publishing personal information about or relating to me by any means whatsoever but particularly any publication by electronic means including but not limited to e-mail, Internet blogs, Internet forums and similar means.
You are hereby expressly prohibited without waiver from using for any purpose whatsoever any information about, concerning, or relating to me, my education, background, professional activities, personal activities, or any information about or relating to me such as résumés, curriculua vitae, documents or records of any kind whatsoever.
You are hereby served without waiver with my express demand that you immediately remove any résumé, curriculum vitae, reports, records or any other document created by me or provided by any third party, whether paid or unpaid, from any website, blog, forum or other publication whether in print, electonic, digital, sound or otherwise published by you, but especially by means of any Internet resource.
You are hereby served with notice without waiver that you do have not nor have you ever had permission to publish any document created by me; furthermore, you have no legitimate purpose in using or holding any documents created by me or about, concerning or relating to me.
You are hereby served with notice without waiver that you any publication of any document created by me, any résumé, any curriculum vitae, any price list, any customer list, any portion of any website created by me, any portion of any blog created by me will be a violation of copyright and of my rights as author of any such document or creation and you will make yourself prosecutable for any such violation.
You are hereby served without waiver with express notice that I expressly forbid you to request information about, relating to, or concerning my person or any matter relating to me whatsoever.
I hereby withdraw any express or implied licence or permission to use any information about, concerning or relating to me in any form whatsoever.
I hereby demand that you cease and desist publishing any further harassing, defamatory or any other writings or representations that may have the intended, possible or potential effect of annoying, irritating, intimidating, causing alarm, adversely affecting my business and livelihood, adversely affecting my reputation or casting me in an unfavorable light.
Any further such activity by you or by any third party reasonably acting for you, on your behalf or in association with you will be interpreted to be a voluntary and intentional act of defamation or aggravated harassment and conspiracy, and any person acting in association with you or any of your publications, whether in writing or by electronic means, will be made accountable for criminal conspiracy.
This notification will be considered my final demand that you cease and desist your unwanted and prohibited publications and illegitimate pursuit and harassment of me by means of the Internet.
Mr Richard D. Benham / Mr Scott Horne is being copied with this message with our request that he ensure that you receive a copy.
Please note the legal text below and be informed that you do not have my permission to disseminate this message to any third party without my written consent.
*****
You are hereby served with final notice without waiver to cease and desist using and publishing personal information about or relating to me by any means whatsoever but particularly any publication by electronic means including but not limited to e-mail, Internet blogs, Internet forums and similar means.
You are hereby expressly prohibited without waiver from using for any purpose whatsoever any information about, concerning, or relating to me, my education, background, professional activities, personal activities, or any information about or relating to me such as résumés, curriculua vitae, documents or records of any kind whatsoever.
You are hereby served without waiver with my express demand that you immediately remove any résumé, curriculum vitae, reports, records or any other document created by me or provided by any third party, whether paid or unpaid, from any website, blog, forum or other publication whether in print, electonic, digital, sound or otherwise published by you, but especially by means of any Internet resource.
You are hereby served with notice without waiver that you do have not nor have you ever had permission to publish any document created by me; furthermore, you have no legitimate purpose in using or holding any documents created by me or about, concerning or relating to me.
You are hereby served with notice without waiver that you any publication of any document created by me, any résumé, any curriculum vitae, any price list, any customer list, any portion of any website created by me, any portion of any blog created by me will be a violation of copyright and of my rights as author of any such document or creation and you will make yourself prosecutable for any such violation.
You are hereby served without waiver with express notice that I expressly forbid you to request information about, relating to, or concerning my person or any matter relating to me whatsoever.
I hereby withdraw any express or implied licence or permission to use any information about, concerning or relating to me in any form whatsoever.
I hereby demand that you cease and desist publishing any further harassing, defamatory or any other writings or representations that may have the intended, possible or potential effect of annoying, irritating, intimidating, causing alarm, adversely affecting my business and livelihood, adversely affecting my reputation or casting me in an unfavorable light.
Any further such activity by you or by any third party reasonably acting for you, on your behalf or in association with you will be interpreted to be a voluntary and intentional act of defamation or aggravated harassment and conspiracy, and any person acting in association with you or any of your publications, whether in writing or by electronic means, will be made accountable for criminal conspiracy.
This notification will be considered my final demand that you cease and desist your unwanted and prohibited publications and illegitimate pursuit and harassment of me by means of the Internet.
Mr Richard D. Benham / Mr Scott Horne is being copied with this message with our request that he ensure that you receive a copy.
Please note the legal text below and be informed that you do not have my permission to disseminate this message to any third party without my written consent.
*****
Mr Benham and Mr Horne have been notified several times previously in private and by other means that their attentions are unwanted. This will serve as public notice that I demand that they cease and desist immediately.
Trolls and Sockpuppets: Internet Slang for Benham and Horne
I have been referring to Internet abusers and defamers. Internet slang has a better terms: "troll" and "sockpuppet". Those readers who have been following Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's posts on discussion forums, blogs, and other Internet sites will recognize incredible parallels and will agree that what we are dealing with here is a troll and his sockpuppet.
But it appears that the Internet community actually has names for this phenomenon that appears to be more widespread and common that we had originally supposed. Read on!
According to Wickipedia:
"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response."
This is exactly what Mr Benham and Mr Horne, our illustrative examples of Internet abuse and defamation, do. Right, Ms Lamb-Ruiz?
"The word likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn from the trolls portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales; they are often ugly, obnoxious creatures bent on mischief and wickedness."
The shoe fits Mr Benham and Mr Horne; so does the description, if I'm not mistaken.
"A concern troll is a pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns"."
Now this couldn't be more true of Mr Horne and Mr Benham.
"Then there's the sockpuppet. The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt") is the active exploitation of the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer. Using multiple identities for privacy purposes (for example, one identity divulges information which is easily identifiable and the other identity acts as a whistleblower) is not considered sockpuppetry unless one identity expresses assent to another identity's posting."
OH! Mr Horne, you puppet, you! Mr Benham has his hand in your one end and Ms Ross has her hand in your other end, a tube-sockpuppet!
Monday, January 28, 2008
Fluff and Puff: Any thoughts, Mr Benham?
Mr Benham, we would be interested in hearing your response to our posting, Fluff and Puff, below. Care to comment?
Personal Apology
I would like to offer a personal apology to the majority of my readers ... to the obvious exclusion of our illustrative examples of Internet abuse and defamation, the resident trolls, Mr Richard Benham, Mr Scott Horne and Ms Joan Ross, who seem to be constantly lurking on my blog site.
My frustration with Internet abusers and defamers may have come to the surface and was expressed by my recent several posts in which I may have come across as uncharacteristically unkind or sarcastic.
I am neither unkind nor do I find any useful purpose in being unkind or sarcastic; that is not who I am and I do not under any circumstances wish to make that untrue appearance. I am a very kind and considerate person but it becomes annoying and frustrating when I am faced with unashamed stupidity and recalcitrant arrogance, even when the malfeasors are confronted with proof of error or falsity.
I do not want to appear of the same stuff of the people I am fighting against--those of the ilk of Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Joan Ross and John Luckacovic--because I am not abusive or unkind and I do want to author this blog with dignity, truth and objectivity and not with ad hominem attack and smears. Benham, Horne, Ross and Luckacovic are much better at that than I could ever be. That is not my purpose and it is wrong.
Any lack of dignity or loss of control may affect credibility--such as clearly evidenced in Mr Benham's ranting blog entries and Mr Horne's so-called "endorsements"; the hallmark of this blog is that it is intended to be true and informative. It is intended to wake people up to the reality of a big problem in real terms and to provide concrete examples of what's going on and why it is wrong.
To be fair, also, the Internet abusers and defamers must be given fair notice and adequate opportunity to either recant or prepare for civil and criminal consequences; it is a moral duty when one is abused or defamed not only to defend one's self but also to afford the malfeasors a fair opportinity to make amends.
The good thing is that I can catch myself and control myself and return to resume my sensible and rational discussions ... the intent of this blog is not to fight fire with fire because then everyone gets burnt ... self-control and dignity should be exercised by at least one party in any dispute. It is obvious that I am that party here.
Thank you for your understanding and continuing support.
My frustration with Internet abusers and defamers may have come to the surface and was expressed by my recent several posts in which I may have come across as uncharacteristically unkind or sarcastic.
I am neither unkind nor do I find any useful purpose in being unkind or sarcastic; that is not who I am and I do not under any circumstances wish to make that untrue appearance. I am a very kind and considerate person but it becomes annoying and frustrating when I am faced with unashamed stupidity and recalcitrant arrogance, even when the malfeasors are confronted with proof of error or falsity.
I do not want to appear of the same stuff of the people I am fighting against--those of the ilk of Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Joan Ross and John Luckacovic--because I am not abusive or unkind and I do want to author this blog with dignity, truth and objectivity and not with ad hominem attack and smears. Benham, Horne, Ross and Luckacovic are much better at that than I could ever be. That is not my purpose and it is wrong.
Any lack of dignity or loss of control may affect credibility--such as clearly evidenced in Mr Benham's ranting blog entries and Mr Horne's so-called "endorsements"; the hallmark of this blog is that it is intended to be true and informative. It is intended to wake people up to the reality of a big problem in real terms and to provide concrete examples of what's going on and why it is wrong.
To be fair, also, the Internet abusers and defamers must be given fair notice and adequate opportunity to either recant or prepare for civil and criminal consequences; it is a moral duty when one is abused or defamed not only to defend one's self but also to afford the malfeasors a fair opportinity to make amends.
The good thing is that I can catch myself and control myself and return to resume my sensible and rational discussions ... the intent of this blog is not to fight fire with fire because then everyone gets burnt ... self-control and dignity should be exercised by at least one party in any dispute. It is obvious that I am that party here.
Thank you for your understanding and continuing support.
"What Next?"... Puhleez spare us, Benham!
In his most recent diatribe Mr Benham asks the question: "What next?"
Well, Mr Benham, Mr Horne & Cie. it certainly shouldn't be a problem even for a hepatotoxic psychotic to figure out what's next. You practically live on my blog site; certainly you must have some idea of what's next. Even the most reality discordant Internet abuser and defamer would not have any problem figuring out "What's next?"
Well, Mr Benham, Mr Horne & Cie. it certainly shouldn't be a problem even for a hepatotoxic psychotic to figure out what's next. You practically live on my blog site; certainly you must have some idea of what's next. Even the most reality discordant Internet abuser and defamer would not have any problem figuring out "What's next?"
The Joan Ross-Scott Horne Connection
In the practice of gathering intelligence there is a popular recommendation: 'Never ask a question for which you don't already suspect [or know] the answer.' In gathering intelligence [even when dealing with the unintelligent] the questions are usually confirmatory of an already well established theorem. So, we apologize for confronting our illustrative examples of Internet abuse and defamation with questions for which we know the answers. We are only making an attempt to get them to finally admit what we all know at this point is true: they made some really big boo-boos (ouch!) and are in really deep doo-doo.
Ms Joan Ross and Mr John Luckacovic of New Baltimore already know they made some big mistakes but at least Luckacovic knows enough to keep his mouth shut (well, sometimes). Joan Ross, in contrast, apparently lacks the brain region for controlling her mouth or the musculature of her constantly wagging tongue. Mr Scott Horne apparently lacks the brain regions for socially compatible behavior and good judgment. Mr Benham's so-called forums, blogs and other venues for psychotic ranting and his association with Mr Horne places them all in one big sinking barrel.
Our requests to various agencies for investigations has paid off and we expect the still pending responses from the authorities to yield worthwhile and usable, albeit not unexpected, results.
We are still interested in exploring the level of Mr Scott Horne's instinct for survival and continue to urge him to cooperate and perhaps save his bereted reptilian head. Having exposed himself to prosecution, civil and criminal, as he has done and his choice of 'friends' doesn't say much for his endowment of grey matter but perhaps even a primitive survival instinct will convince him to collaborate with us and put the most accessible, vociferous, reckless of the Internet abusers and defamers on ice.
While we do appreciate any hints of cooperation and collaboration, Mr Horne, we do need something more explicit to work with.
Think about it, won't you?
Post scriptum: Readers can Google any of the key words or names in these posts to get an idea of what's available on this subject. It works wonderfully well. For example: Try defamation + any name and get results.
Post post scriptum: It appears my reference to Rodney Dangerfield was lost on braniac Benham. I was referring to Dangerfield's 1986 film "Back to School" that portrays the ridiculous puerile antics of a middle-aged fat man who returns to college. It's hillarious.
Ms Joan Ross and Mr John Luckacovic of New Baltimore already know they made some big mistakes but at least Luckacovic knows enough to keep his mouth shut (well, sometimes). Joan Ross, in contrast, apparently lacks the brain region for controlling her mouth or the musculature of her constantly wagging tongue. Mr Scott Horne apparently lacks the brain regions for socially compatible behavior and good judgment. Mr Benham's so-called forums, blogs and other venues for psychotic ranting and his association with Mr Horne places them all in one big sinking barrel.
Our requests to various agencies for investigations has paid off and we expect the still pending responses from the authorities to yield worthwhile and usable, albeit not unexpected, results.
We are still interested in exploring the level of Mr Scott Horne's instinct for survival and continue to urge him to cooperate and perhaps save his bereted reptilian head. Having exposed himself to prosecution, civil and criminal, as he has done and his choice of 'friends' doesn't say much for his endowment of grey matter but perhaps even a primitive survival instinct will convince him to collaborate with us and put the most accessible, vociferous, reckless of the Internet abusers and defamers on ice.
While we do appreciate any hints of cooperation and collaboration, Mr Horne, we do need something more explicit to work with.
Think about it, won't you?
Post scriptum: Readers can Google any of the key words or names in these posts to get an idea of what's available on this subject. It works wonderfully well. For example: Try defamation + any name and get results.
Post post scriptum: It appears my reference to Rodney Dangerfield was lost on braniac Benham. I was referring to Dangerfield's 1986 film "Back to School" that portrays the ridiculous puerile antics of a middle-aged fat man who returns to college. It's hillarious.
Fluff and Puff: Defenses of the Internet Abuser and Defamer
Fluff and Puff: The fluff is padding, and more padding and the puff is blow one's self large and try to appear larger than you are. These are the tools of the now defensive Internet abuser and defamer, our illustrative examples Richard Benham and Co. When trapped, the strategy is to throw more random assertions out there, desperately hoping that readers will forget the actual questions. Well, Mr Benham, readers are not as ignorant or as stupid as you'd wish they were.
Just answer the essential questions:
Just answer the essential questions:
- Where is the signed release you said you had but didn't? - Criminal fraud!
- Where is all the evidence of revoked medals? - Defamer!
- Who or what is the source of your other random factoids? - Liar!
- If you are at the University of Geneva, what college or faculty, what are you "studying"?
- Please also directly address the other myriad questions in my recent postings.
Like all Internet abusers, defamers, trolls and general malfeasors, our illustrative examples of evil, Benham, Horne, Ross and their ilk have no substance at all. Of course they don't respond to the many questions: They can't! Or if they do it's with more factoids and diversions.
Because the Internet abuser and defamer's whole fabric is lies, when caught they have to compound the lies or pile up the puff and diversions or both (case in point: please see Mr Benham's recent postings). Responding to uncomfortable questions not part of the abuser's and defamer's profile.
Internet abusers and defamers are typically very unhappy, angry, envious and underachieved persons. Our examples, Benham, Horne and Ross all fit the profile. Take Mr Benham, for example. His career cut short by "liver disease". Angry. A feeling of being defective, worthless. Physically, he's not pretty and that certainly doesn't help in already damaged self-esteem. Retired prematurely? Note: He doen't say he retired (active) but "was retired" (passive, someone retired him!). Any self-respect he might have had got zilched. A 20-year hiatus in his life? Was he in jail, homeless, in a coma, ... ? Middle-aged men with low self-esteem and zero self-respect are not exactly A-list company. Would anyone pursue such an aggressive and nasty campaign of lies if he weren't just overflowing with anger, with hate and envy. Get a grip, Benham, Horne, Ross. Didn't mommy love you?
More than 20 years of life that are not worth mentioning in a résumé doen't bode well for the guy, either. Raises too many questions. Speaking of questions, why such
Google "liver disease psychosis" and you'll be shocked by what you find. Liver disease is frequently accompanied by psychotic manifestations: 645,000 hits. If even 1/1000 of them are credible, that's telling -- and it's the scientific literature speaking, not a Benham wannabe.
One tactic of the psychotic mind for dealing with the world is to attempt to annihilate, destroy, deface what the psychotic mind fears, envies, loves -- even suicide may be an interesting example, both physical and psychic suicide. Is this what Benham, Horne and Ross are acting out, perhaps? I'm not a psychiatrist at all but there are concrete examples of such behavior in the annals of forensic psychiatry.
Mr Benham, Dina, we have another very simple question based on your behavior and writings: Are you psychotic or just plain stupid?
No real need to answer, I think many of us have already decided for ourselves.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Benham ... a translator?
Anyone who has had a chance to review Richard Benham's résumé will learn some interesting trivia about Benham, the paradigm of the translating community, the man who single-handedly said he wanted to change the Chartered Institute of Linguists from "within" but never got to joining. That's the same Richard Davey Benham who has a career gap of about 20 years between the early 1980s -- when he was "retired" from his Australian burocratic position due to "liver disease" -- and his resurfacing in about 2003 to become a "professional translator". That's the same Richard Benham who is pointing the finger at Harold Vadney and questioning Vadney's skills as a linguist when Vadney received the Institute of Linguists diploma in 1981 and has more than 25 years of translating experience ... But Benham, the former clerk and programmer, now after four years of alleged professional translating is not only the master translator but also the arbiter of ethics in the translating profession.
And now ... get this ... Benham, now in his mid 50s is back to school, (Wait a minute! There are some amazing parallels between Benham and Rodney Dangerfield!) he claims, at the University of Geneva, doing "post-graduate" (don't you need a graduate degree first, before you do post-graduate work?) studies there. This is all obviously a bit difficult to swallow ... but then Benham is long on wind and stories and very, very, very short on facts and truth.
And Mr Scott Horne, expatriate American, now wannabe Canadian and self-acclaimed "militant atheist", defender of ethics in the translating professions, puffed-up expert in everything linguistic ... with a hyperspeciality in libel ... doesn't even have a profile anywhere, much less a résumé but joins with Benham in deprecating Harold Vadney's credentials and yes, is a professional linguist, a translator with no résumé. There go those flying pigs across my screen again! Darned, why wasn't I born a bit more gullible?
Mr Scott Waldman of the Albany Times Union must know something I must have missed. Goodness, Waldman believed Benham and Horne. Why can't I?
For all we don't know about Benham and Horne, we do know that they have become our illustrative examples of, well, to use their own well worn words: liars and frauds. Ironic, isn't it. The very loudest of the witch-hunters, our glowing examples of Internet abusers and defamers, now sport the F of the fraud branded deeply on their foreheads.
There is Justice!
And now ... get this ... Benham, now in his mid 50s is back to school, (Wait a minute! There are some amazing parallels between Benham and Rodney Dangerfield!) he claims, at the University of Geneva, doing "post-graduate" (don't you need a graduate degree first, before you do post-graduate work?) studies there. This is all obviously a bit difficult to swallow ... but then Benham is long on wind and stories and very, very, very short on facts and truth.
And Mr Scott Horne, expatriate American, now wannabe Canadian and self-acclaimed "militant atheist", defender of ethics in the translating professions, puffed-up expert in everything linguistic ... with a hyperspeciality in libel ... doesn't even have a profile anywhere, much less a résumé but joins with Benham in deprecating Harold Vadney's credentials and yes, is a professional linguist, a translator with no résumé. There go those flying pigs across my screen again! Darned, why wasn't I born a bit more gullible?
Mr Scott Waldman of the Albany Times Union must know something I must have missed. Goodness, Waldman believed Benham and Horne. Why can't I?
For all we don't know about Benham and Horne, we do know that they have become our illustrative examples of, well, to use their own well worn words: liars and frauds. Ironic, isn't it. The very loudest of the witch-hunters, our glowing examples of Internet abusers and defamers, now sport the F of the fraud branded deeply on their foreheads.
There is Justice!
Department of the Army Confirms Decorations!
It just gets worse and worse for our illustrative examples of Internet abuse and defamation, Mr Richard Benham and Mr Scott Horne and their collaborators.
Mr Benham and Mr Horne accused Harold Vadney of claiming military decorations he did not have. Well, again, Mr Benham and Mr Horne fed their readers and their gullible journalist friend, Mr Scott Waldman of the Albany Times Union, false facts Benham and Horne had no credible or legal way of obtaining.
The United Stated Department of the Army has confirmed that ALL of the military decorations claimed by Harold Vadney are intact and valid. No medal was ever revoked as Mr Horne has repeatedly alleged and as Benham and Horne published in their ridiculous forums and blogs.
Notwithstanding the fact that Harold Vadney requested his own personal information from the Department of the Army, he still had to provide extensive personal identifying information as well as his signature to obtain the complete information and it took more than 16 weeks for the request to be processed!
It will be interesting to observe the events that will develop over the next several weeks as the investigations come to their climax and Mr Scott Waldman's employers, the Times Union newspaper and others are served with the notice of claim in a legal action for libel.
Be warned, Mr Waldman, check your sources and your facts before jumping on the bandwagon. You might also want to take some refresher courses in journalism, journalistic liability and, of course, interviewing techniques. No wonder they have you covering the "hill towns"!
Jane Lamb-Ruiz, the hysterical harridan who just couldn't resist going into a frantic frenzy when reading Benham's and Horne's so-called revelations on the translators forums, and just had to contact the authorities in some idiotic attempt to give vent to her laughable lunacy, now certainly looks as foolish as the rest of the clowns involved with Benham's and Horne's criminal scam. Let's see what your darling friends Benham and Horne can do for you now, dear Jane!
Postscriptum: The Chartered Institute of Linguists are pursuing their investigation and we are looking forward to their confirmation of the true facts. Harold Vadney has the diploma from his original credentialling by the IoL as well as the document certifying his original election to be a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
Post post-scriptum: Offer still stands, Mr Horne: Save yourself and give me Ross and Luckacovic! You know what I want. It's either their heads or yours and theirs but heads are going to be rolling in US Federal Court for this most recent despicable defamation and abuse.
Mr Benham and Mr Horne accused Harold Vadney of claiming military decorations he did not have. Well, again, Mr Benham and Mr Horne fed their readers and their gullible journalist friend, Mr Scott Waldman of the Albany Times Union, false facts Benham and Horne had no credible or legal way of obtaining.
The United Stated Department of the Army has confirmed that ALL of the military decorations claimed by Harold Vadney are intact and valid. No medal was ever revoked as Mr Horne has repeatedly alleged and as Benham and Horne published in their ridiculous forums and blogs.
Notwithstanding the fact that Harold Vadney requested his own personal information from the Department of the Army, he still had to provide extensive personal identifying information as well as his signature to obtain the complete information and it took more than 16 weeks for the request to be processed!
It will be interesting to observe the events that will develop over the next several weeks as the investigations come to their climax and Mr Scott Waldman's employers, the Times Union newspaper and others are served with the notice of claim in a legal action for libel.
Be warned, Mr Waldman, check your sources and your facts before jumping on the bandwagon. You might also want to take some refresher courses in journalism, journalistic liability and, of course, interviewing techniques. No wonder they have you covering the "hill towns"!
Jane Lamb-Ruiz, the hysterical harridan who just couldn't resist going into a frantic frenzy when reading Benham's and Horne's so-called revelations on the translators forums, and just had to contact the authorities in some idiotic attempt to give vent to her laughable lunacy, now certainly looks as foolish as the rest of the clowns involved with Benham's and Horne's criminal scam. Let's see what your darling friends Benham and Horne can do for you now, dear Jane!
Postscriptum: The Chartered Institute of Linguists are pursuing their investigation and we are looking forward to their confirmation of the true facts. Harold Vadney has the diploma from his original credentialling by the IoL as well as the document certifying his original election to be a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
Post post-scriptum: Offer still stands, Mr Horne: Save yourself and give me Ross and Luckacovic! You know what I want. It's either their heads or yours and theirs but heads are going to be rolling in US Federal Court for this most recent despicable defamation and abuse.
Signed Release, Mr Benham ... Fraud!
In a recent communication from Credentials Inc. a.k.a. DegreeChk, Mr Benham's alleged source of information relating to Harold Vadney's credentials, Mr T. Reed, Vice President, investigating Benham, writes:
"We are in the process of requesting proof of a signed authorization form or release from Mr. Benham regarding his degree verification that was completed on yourself. When someone agrees to our service agreement, they certify and agree that they, or the company they represent, have a legal release from the subject of their inquiry.
"I will keep you apprised of the progress."
Well, Mr Benham, it will be v-e-r-r-r-y i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g to see you come up with that very non-existing wrtten release you claimed to have had from me.
Once Credentials Inc. finds you didn't have that release and that you fraudulently certified to have had it, who do you think Credentials Inc. and the State University are going to go after and prosecute? What do you think of prosecution under US federal law and the mutual assistance treaties for prosecution of criminals?
What are you going to do now? What do you have to say for yourself?
What do you think Mr Scott Waldman is going to say when his newspaper gets hit with a libel suit because he relied on the fraudulent and incorrect informatin you and Mr Horne fed him?
"We are in the process of requesting proof of a signed authorization form or release from Mr. Benham regarding his degree verification that was completed on yourself. When someone agrees to our service agreement, they certify and agree that they, or the company they represent, have a legal release from the subject of their inquiry.
"I will keep you apprised of the progress."
Well, Mr Benham, it will be v-e-r-r-r-y i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g to see you come up with that very non-existing wrtten release you claimed to have had from me.
Once Credentials Inc. finds you didn't have that release and that you fraudulently certified to have had it, who do you think Credentials Inc. and the State University are going to go after and prosecute? What do you think of prosecution under US federal law and the mutual assistance treaties for prosecution of criminals?
What are you going to do now? What do you have to say for yourself?
What do you think Mr Scott Waldman is going to say when his newspaper gets hit with a libel suit because he relied on the fraudulent and incorrect informatin you and Mr Horne fed him?
Friday, January 25, 2008
Comments Invited
We would like to repeat our policy that anyone may post a comment to this blog providing it is relevant and civil. Posters must, however, register for a Google account (this has nothing to do with this blog except to restrict comments to bona fide visitors). Comments are moderated and we do not allow anonymous comments. If you have anything to say we expect you to take responsibility for it.
This is in stark contrast to Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's blog where they choose to block visitors and to moderate and restrict comments and the Chartered Institute of Linguists discussion forums where Mr Benahm under the assumed name of "Dina" acts as moderator. Enough said.
This is in stark contrast to Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's blog where they choose to block visitors and to moderate and restrict comments and the Chartered Institute of Linguists discussion forums where Mr Benahm under the assumed name of "Dina" acts as moderator. Enough said.
Not in Israel, not anywhere?
Known illustrative example, Scott Horne, denies posting his location as Get Shemesh, Israel and Richard Benham denies being in Corebei-Essonnes, France, but how do they explain this:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/menands-ny/T607EA2QOQG3A6LHF
They're nowhere, everywhere, but not anywhere and they won't say where. Or is this just another one of Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's red, green, pink, etc. herrings? Looks like plain old deception to us.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/menands-ny/T607EA2QOQG3A6LHF
They're nowhere, everywhere, but not anywhere and they won't say where. Or is this just another one of Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's red, green, pink, etc. herrings? Looks like plain old deception to us.
Special Mention ...
Several comments posted by our illustrative examples of Internet abuse and defamation, Richard Benham and Scott Horne deserve special mention because they claim to be privy to some very personal, particular information:
Or, in the alternative, as Mr Benham and Mr Horne are wont to confirm on their blog site, they have red, green, pink herrings to throw out there. Are these one of those irridescent herrings, one wonders? If so, why the fish stories?
Mr Benham also characterizes his blog as "defensive"; Now he's defensive ... why would that be? He was on the offensive and was being quite offensive just a short time ago.
Herrings or no herrings, the problem Mr Benham and Mr Horne present as examples of Internet abuse and defamation is that of what can one believe of what they say?
And what about Mr Benham's alter ego, Dina, as he appears on the Chartered Institute of Linguists discussion forums? Wouldn't it be more credible if he were there as Richard Benham, moderator? Hey, Mr Stellios Patsiatzis, investigating officer at the cIoL, what's the story with "Dina"?
Let's make a deal:
Here's our offer, Mr Horne, Mr Benham: Name your sources, your collaborators and make a deal. As despicable as plea bargains are to let one malfeasor off the hook for throwing in bigger fish, it is a proven tactic. We may be amenable to considering letting you off if you name your sources. After all, if your sources are credible you may thus be able to prove your credibility. consider what that would do to our claims against you. Just think, Mr Horne, confirm that Joan Ross recruited you and fed you information and get off scott (sorry, no pun intended!) free! Now wouldn't it be worth it? After all, it's going to come out eventually anyway.
- My financial condition
- My religiosity
- My sexuality
- My skills as a linguist
Or, in the alternative, as Mr Benham and Mr Horne are wont to confirm on their blog site, they have red, green, pink herrings to throw out there. Are these one of those irridescent herrings, one wonders? If so, why the fish stories?
Mr Benham also characterizes his blog as "defensive"; Now he's defensive ... why would that be? He was on the offensive and was being quite offensive just a short time ago.
Herrings or no herrings, the problem Mr Benham and Mr Horne present as examples of Internet abuse and defamation is that of what can one believe of what they say?
And what about Mr Benham's alter ego, Dina, as he appears on the Chartered Institute of Linguists discussion forums? Wouldn't it be more credible if he were there as Richard Benham, moderator? Hey, Mr Stellios Patsiatzis, investigating officer at the cIoL, what's the story with "Dina"?
Let's make a deal:
Here's our offer, Mr Horne, Mr Benham: Name your sources, your collaborators and make a deal. As despicable as plea bargains are to let one malfeasor off the hook for throwing in bigger fish, it is a proven tactic. We may be amenable to considering letting you off if you name your sources. After all, if your sources are credible you may thus be able to prove your credibility. consider what that would do to our claims against you. Just think, Mr Horne, confirm that Joan Ross recruited you and fed you information and get off scott (sorry, no pun intended!) free! Now wouldn't it be worth it? After all, it's going to come out eventually anyway.
Relevance, GIGO and Other Bagatelles
"Bagatelle" an interesting word. It's a word that is quite versatile: a trifle, a game, a short piece of verse or music.
The Internet abuser and defamer plays a deceptive game of short attacks magnifying trifles. There, we got it all in one sentence. Using the illustrative examples of Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's blog postings, this word "bagatelle" acquires new meaning mutatis mutandi.
Benham and Horne repeatedly refer to the irrelevant and immaterial:
Most trolls, Internet abusers, defamers don't expect their plots to backfire because most persons are intimidated by the rude and scurrilous scandal published by the defamers. Most decent persons would not debase themselves by responding in kind with the type of language and depravity that most Internet abusers and defamers, trolls, use (no wonder the application of the name "troll" to such maladapts). Most people just go silent and hope the demons will move on to vampirize other victims.
It's when one has the courage and fortitude to fight back and make reasonable demands that the scoundrels have to make a difficult choice: (i) the wise choice of backing off, (ii) the unwise choice of backing into a corner and baring their carious teeth, hoping to put up a last show of ... arrogance is it? That's what's happening with our illustrative examples, Mr Benham and Mr Horne.
Horne's collaborator and correspondent, defendant Joan Ross of New Baltimore, is even more scurrilous and sneaky: she uses Horne and Benham to do her dirty work (she's known to do that here in the community, too). But are Horne and Benham are too involved in themselves (or each other) to have realized this? Is Horne so benighted that even though warned of Ross' and here co-defendant John Luckacovic's statements involving Horne in their conspiracies that he continues his futile excursions into depravity. What makes these people tick?
At least Joan Ross has the reptilian sense to remain in the shadows and recruit others to do her mischief; at least Joan Ross' attorney had the good sense to advise Ross to take the Fifth Amendment protection and not incriminate herself when answering any questions about Horne and herself.
Our illustrative examples, Richard Benham and Scott Horne, also need to take to heart some very important axioms:
The outcome is uniform for all such malfeasors: they hate themselves, they are hated by others, they wallow in anger, they cultivate hate, they create identities, they finish miserably.
Pray for them!
The Internet abuser and defamer plays a deceptive game of short attacks magnifying trifles. There, we got it all in one sentence. Using the illustrative examples of Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's blog postings, this word "bagatelle" acquires new meaning mutatis mutandi.
Benham and Horne repeatedly refer to the irrelevant and immaterial:
- Innuendos regarding sexuality (now how did that get into the discussion; do they know something I'm unaware of?)
- One's translation skills (a 4-year translator calling a more than 25-year veteran incompent? That's rich!)
- One's e-mail address (and ... )
- One's forum questions (???)
- One's financial condition (where'd they get that information)
Most trolls, Internet abusers, defamers don't expect their plots to backfire because most persons are intimidated by the rude and scurrilous scandal published by the defamers. Most decent persons would not debase themselves by responding in kind with the type of language and depravity that most Internet abusers and defamers, trolls, use (no wonder the application of the name "troll" to such maladapts). Most people just go silent and hope the demons will move on to vampirize other victims.
It's when one has the courage and fortitude to fight back and make reasonable demands that the scoundrels have to make a difficult choice: (i) the wise choice of backing off, (ii) the unwise choice of backing into a corner and baring their carious teeth, hoping to put up a last show of ... arrogance is it? That's what's happening with our illustrative examples, Mr Benham and Mr Horne.
Horne's collaborator and correspondent, defendant Joan Ross of New Baltimore, is even more scurrilous and sneaky: she uses Horne and Benham to do her dirty work (she's known to do that here in the community, too). But are Horne and Benham are too involved in themselves (or each other) to have realized this? Is Horne so benighted that even though warned of Ross' and here co-defendant John Luckacovic's statements involving Horne in their conspiracies that he continues his futile excursions into depravity. What makes these people tick?
At least Joan Ross has the reptilian sense to remain in the shadows and recruit others to do her mischief; at least Joan Ross' attorney had the good sense to advise Ross to take the Fifth Amendment protection and not incriminate herself when answering any questions about Horne and herself.
Our illustrative examples, Richard Benham and Scott Horne, also need to take to heart some very important axioms:
- False assumptions lead to false conclusions
- False or incomplete facts, no matter how frequently they are repeated, don't become true or complete
- Garbage In Garbage Out (GIGO)
- False statements don't make good arguments
- Evidence acquired by illegal means is inadmissible
- Knowledge of a conspiracy makes the person with knowledge a co-conspirator
- In defamation one true statement does not make the false statements truer
- In harassment, a request to cease and desist that is ignored agravates the harassment
- Even if it is alleged that there is no malice there still must be legitimate purpose
- Always remember the boy who cried Wolf!
- Always keep your credibility and dignity
- Don't abuse and always check your facts.
The outcome is uniform for all such malfeasors: they hate themselves, they are hated by others, they wallow in anger, they cultivate hate, they create identities, they finish miserably.
Pray for them!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Good Bait: Red Herrings for Bottom Feeders!
The use of red herrings by even the victims of Internet scoundrels can yield results: Mr Benham or "Dina" as he likes to refer to himself in his feminine alter ego, one of our principal examples of what lurks on the Internet, has reappeared after several days of hibernation and YES! our bait has again hooked the bottom-feeder!
Yet another diatribe of profanity, self-agrandizing, self-righteous, overly defensive, offensive puffery ... This may be characterized as the typical rodent response when backed into a corner and is exemplar of what anyone can expect when baiting bottom-feeders.
The author of the random, scatter-bomb, uncontrolled, and generally hare-brained accusations is again the incredibly repetitive, pseudological (apparently Mr Benham believes that if he says it enough times it will miraculously become true), bombastic and self-agrandizing, pathetic, low self-esteem, no self-respect, self-loathing, unloved, lonely and angry man behind all of this hate: Richard Davey Benham. Our exemplar specimens, Mr Benham and Mr Horne, unlike the solitary Internet troll who lurks, surfaces, shoots his darts, and disappears again, comprise an well-matched duo in many of their traits so characteristic of the solitary Internet troll: they lurk on various forums or sites, attaching themselves like parasites, insinuate themselves, assume false names to hide their identities, assume an acceptable persona when public only to transform and do their mischief under assumed names.
Once found out, though, they are quickly alienated and banished (similar to the situation in which Mr Benham and Mr Horne now find themselves) and ultimately, in their solitary desperation and abandonment, lash out with the typical communcation of rejection: name-calling, profanity, random ad hominem attacks, wild speculation and, well, depravity.
To support these theses, we would refer our readers to Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's dialogues (and dialogues they are, mutual stroking sessions, actually) published as a blog. We say "would" refer our readers but the material is so base, so offensive it would be an embarassment. Suffice it to say that the use of the term "bottom-feeder" is chosen not to be insulting or abusive but as a very apropos term that aptly describes Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's conduct, conduct that should not be published but should be stowed away someplace dark and secured; Mr Benham and Mr Horne are feeding the demons they have inside with the basest flattus, the very bottom of intellectual production: they are literally feeding from the very bottom of human intellectual detritus.
We cannot avoid the use of the word pathetic because Mr Benham and Mr Horne apparently have no sense of propriety or self-respect because if they had, they would realize what a poor overall impression they are making of themselves and stop.
We cannot fathom what is going on in their heads when they publish such offensive and self-pejorating slurry and actually think, perhaps even believe that anyone would take them seriously. But that can be said for any of the types that are typically referred to as trolls, defamers, and their ilk. They tend to be self-destructive.
Joan Ross, now a defendant in a lawsuit for defamation and other intentional torts--the case is now in New York State Supreme Court and is calendared for trial starting on August 14, 2007--described this very type of behavior in an e-mail in which she describes it ironically as the "Joan trap" where the individual tears apart every aspect of the person with whom she has a gripe. Well, the trap that Ms Ross named after herself and her self-description certainly echoes true for Mr Benham and Mr Horne.
Yet another diatribe of profanity, self-agrandizing, self-righteous, overly defensive, offensive puffery ... This may be characterized as the typical rodent response when backed into a corner and is exemplar of what anyone can expect when baiting bottom-feeders.
The author of the random, scatter-bomb, uncontrolled, and generally hare-brained accusations is again the incredibly repetitive, pseudological (apparently Mr Benham believes that if he says it enough times it will miraculously become true), bombastic and self-agrandizing, pathetic, low self-esteem, no self-respect, self-loathing, unloved, lonely and angry man behind all of this hate: Richard Davey Benham. Our exemplar specimens, Mr Benham and Mr Horne, unlike the solitary Internet troll who lurks, surfaces, shoots his darts, and disappears again, comprise an well-matched duo in many of their traits so characteristic of the solitary Internet troll: they lurk on various forums or sites, attaching themselves like parasites, insinuate themselves, assume false names to hide their identities, assume an acceptable persona when public only to transform and do their mischief under assumed names.
Once found out, though, they are quickly alienated and banished (similar to the situation in which Mr Benham and Mr Horne now find themselves) and ultimately, in their solitary desperation and abandonment, lash out with the typical communcation of rejection: name-calling, profanity, random ad hominem attacks, wild speculation and, well, depravity.
To support these theses, we would refer our readers to Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's dialogues (and dialogues they are, mutual stroking sessions, actually) published as a blog. We say "would" refer our readers but the material is so base, so offensive it would be an embarassment. Suffice it to say that the use of the term "bottom-feeder" is chosen not to be insulting or abusive but as a very apropos term that aptly describes Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's conduct, conduct that should not be published but should be stowed away someplace dark and secured; Mr Benham and Mr Horne are feeding the demons they have inside with the basest flattus, the very bottom of intellectual production: they are literally feeding from the very bottom of human intellectual detritus.
We cannot avoid the use of the word pathetic because Mr Benham and Mr Horne apparently have no sense of propriety or self-respect because if they had, they would realize what a poor overall impression they are making of themselves and stop.
We cannot fathom what is going on in their heads when they publish such offensive and self-pejorating slurry and actually think, perhaps even believe that anyone would take them seriously. But that can be said for any of the types that are typically referred to as trolls, defamers, and their ilk. They tend to be self-destructive.
Joan Ross, now a defendant in a lawsuit for defamation and other intentional torts--the case is now in New York State Supreme Court and is calendared for trial starting on August 14, 2007--described this very type of behavior in an e-mail in which she describes it ironically as the "Joan trap" where the individual tears apart every aspect of the person with whom she has a gripe. Well, the trap that Ms Ross named after herself and her self-description certainly echoes true for Mr Benham and Mr Horne.
Watch for Red Herrings with Internet Scoundrels.
In my correspondence with persons who have been victims of Internet libel and abuse and based on my research, red herrings are a typical strategy used by Internet scoundrels to attempt to throw people off their tracks.
Mr Benham and Mr Horne, our current examples of Internet scoundrels, use this device regularly. For example:
Mr Benham says he is an Australian national, lately living in Indonesia, now doing a post-graduate degree at the University of Geneva, but now somewhere around Paris: On January 13, 2008, Mr Benham posts on one blog site from Corbeil-Essonnes, France. That's quite a distance from Australia, Indonesia, Geneva, or anywhere else Mr Benham says he might be.
All that being said, Benham also claims to be a professinal translator, having various degrees, various diplomas, etc. The usual. A professional translator myself, it beggars the imagination to think that Mr Benham can move about so much and still be a credible translator. Perhaps also, with all this movement either his translating business is extraordinarily good or he's independently wealthy but to be in so many places in such a narrow period of time is a bit incredible and still be able to make a living. He claims to be a professional translator but there is an enormous hiatus from about 1981 to some indeterminate time (he claims elsewhere to have obtained his linguistic credentials some 4 years ago, I believe). Also, his own résumé raises some questions. Has anyone noticed. Oh. Pardon me, has it disappeared recently? Something's amiss here and I would ask that Mr Benham on one of his very frequent visits here, do us the service of posting an explanatory comment, which I shall be pleased to post in its relevant parts.
Likewise, Mr Horne is something of a question mark. He has no posted résumé, he has no posted profiles, his so-called website is very anemic, he claims to be Canadian but information points to his being an expatriated American in Canada. Mr Horne claims to be a translator of Chinese and Latin and to have various degrees but does not post any credentials. But if he is a translator of Chinese into English, why Montréal and why Bet Shemesh, Israel, if he's an expatriate American citizen.
Also on January 13, 2008, Mr Horne posts on another forum, however, that he is in Bet Shemesh, Israel. Yes, of course, he's traveling to the Holy Land, lives on an Orthodox kibbutz, and is a "militant atheist" by his own admissions. Tell me pigs have wings and I'll believe that, too.
Again, I would like to invite Mr Horne to post a comment explaining all of these questions and I shall be very happy to post the relevant parts.
I would ask Mr Benham to let his "dear friend" Mr Horne know of our interest.
I wonder if Mr Scott Waldman of the Albany Times Union, when preparing to write his "brilliant article", as acclaimed by Benham and Horne, made any effort whatsoever to check the facts or even to check his sources' questionable backgrounds before jumping cheaply on an opportunity to scandalize and yes, to libel.
Oddly, Benham and Horne have been very quiet for the past several days ... probably trying on red herring outfits.
Mr Benham and Mr Horne, our current examples of Internet scoundrels, use this device regularly. For example:
Mr Benham says he is an Australian national, lately living in Indonesia, now doing a post-graduate degree at the University of Geneva, but now somewhere around Paris: On January 13, 2008, Mr Benham posts on one blog site from Corbeil-Essonnes, France. That's quite a distance from Australia, Indonesia, Geneva, or anywhere else Mr Benham says he might be.
All that being said, Benham also claims to be a professinal translator, having various degrees, various diplomas, etc. The usual. A professional translator myself, it beggars the imagination to think that Mr Benham can move about so much and still be a credible translator. Perhaps also, with all this movement either his translating business is extraordinarily good or he's independently wealthy but to be in so many places in such a narrow period of time is a bit incredible and still be able to make a living. He claims to be a professional translator but there is an enormous hiatus from about 1981 to some indeterminate time (he claims elsewhere to have obtained his linguistic credentials some 4 years ago, I believe). Also, his own résumé raises some questions. Has anyone noticed. Oh. Pardon me, has it disappeared recently? Something's amiss here and I would ask that Mr Benham on one of his very frequent visits here, do us the service of posting an explanatory comment, which I shall be pleased to post in its relevant parts.
Likewise, Mr Horne is something of a question mark. He has no posted résumé, he has no posted profiles, his so-called website is very anemic, he claims to be Canadian but information points to his being an expatriated American in Canada. Mr Horne claims to be a translator of Chinese and Latin and to have various degrees but does not post any credentials. But if he is a translator of Chinese into English, why Montréal and why Bet Shemesh, Israel, if he's an expatriate American citizen.
Also on January 13, 2008, Mr Horne posts on another forum, however, that he is in Bet Shemesh, Israel. Yes, of course, he's traveling to the Holy Land, lives on an Orthodox kibbutz, and is a "militant atheist" by his own admissions. Tell me pigs have wings and I'll believe that, too.
Again, I would like to invite Mr Horne to post a comment explaining all of these questions and I shall be very happy to post the relevant parts.
I would ask Mr Benham to let his "dear friend" Mr Horne know of our interest.
I wonder if Mr Scott Waldman of the Albany Times Union, when preparing to write his "brilliant article", as acclaimed by Benham and Horne, made any effort whatsoever to check the facts or even to check his sources' questionable backgrounds before jumping cheaply on an opportunity to scandalize and yes, to libel.
Oddly, Benham and Horne have been very quiet for the past several days ... probably trying on red herring outfits.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Signed release required, Mr Benham!
When, if you go public with any statements at all and publish those statements in the print media, on a broadcast or electronically in e-mails or on the Internet it is absolutely essential that you have facts to back up what you say. Facts are defined as statements that can be proved true or false; opinions, on the other hand, as defined by the courts, cannot be proved true or false. When you take that giant, very risky, and potentially dangerous step of impugning or even ruining someone's good name, you had better have mountains of evidence to back up your statements.
It appears now that Mr Benham, Mr Waldman and Mr Horne are going to have to explain a couple of things ... like why they certified that they had a signed release from me to obtain personal information but in fact they did not.
Here's what we recevied from Credentials Inc. a.k.a. DegreeChk, Benham's source of his alleged credentials verification:
From: Terry Reed [mailto:treed@degreechk.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:06 PMTo: 'Harold W. Vadney'Subject: Degree Verification Results
Mr. Vadney,
We are in the process of requesting proof of a signed authorization form or release from Mr. Benham regarding his degree verification that was completed on yourself. When someone agrees to our service agreement, they certify and agree that they, or the company they represent, have a legal release from the subject of their inquiry.
I will keep you apprised of the progress.
Terry Reed
Vice President
Credentials Inc.
Phone - 847-716-3024
Fax - 847-716-3001
No one. I repeat NO ONE had any release from Harold W. Vadney to obtain personal information. As we have been saying all along Benham, Horne and their accomplices are all frauds and defamers and their so-called facts absolutely bogus!
If you have one Mr Benham, Mr Horne or Mr Waldman, please produce it NOW! Or explain your absolute and outrageous claims!
You see, Mr Benham, Mr Horne, when I say there are investigations in process I mean exactly that: you both are under scrutiny and are in reality being investigated.
(You may be able to avoid a lot of trouble if you tell me who your co-conspirators are in New Baltimore. You'll find I can be very fair.)
It appears now that Mr Benham, Mr Waldman and Mr Horne are going to have to explain a couple of things ... like why they certified that they had a signed release from me to obtain personal information but in fact they did not.
Here's what we recevied from Credentials Inc. a.k.a. DegreeChk, Benham's source of his alleged credentials verification:
From: Terry Reed [mailto:treed@degreechk.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:06 PMTo: 'Harold W. Vadney'Subject: Degree Verification Results
Mr. Vadney,
We are in the process of requesting proof of a signed authorization form or release from Mr. Benham regarding his degree verification that was completed on yourself. When someone agrees to our service agreement, they certify and agree that they, or the company they represent, have a legal release from the subject of their inquiry.
I will keep you apprised of the progress.
Terry Reed
Vice President
Credentials Inc.
Phone - 847-716-3024
Fax - 847-716-3001
No one. I repeat NO ONE had any release from Harold W. Vadney to obtain personal information. As we have been saying all along Benham, Horne and their accomplices are all frauds and defamers and their so-called facts absolutely bogus!
If you have one Mr Benham, Mr Horne or Mr Waldman, please produce it NOW! Or explain your absolute and outrageous claims!
You see, Mr Benham, Mr Horne, when I say there are investigations in process I mean exactly that: you both are under scrutiny and are in reality being investigated.
(You may be able to avoid a lot of trouble if you tell me who your co-conspirators are in New Baltimore. You'll find I can be very fair.)
Updated Posts
Dear Readers:
Based on recent developments and new information obtained, some of the posts on this blog have been updated to reflect new information and to remove information that may have the potential to misinform or misstate facts.
In an effort to remain objective and factual but still represent my personal experiences and views I also have the responsibility to be fair and balanced.
Please note that the edits made largely relate to one issue and one issue alone--to a person who was mentioned in this blog and shall remain unnamed--who has proved in my current experience to be other than how he was previously portrayed.
The edits, however, do not change any information or comments relating to the two malfeasors, Benham and Horn, or their co-conspirators, especially Ms Joan Ross.
It is my intention at all times to be fair, honest, frank, civil in my disclosures and comments and urge any reader who has good faith cause to believe an error may have been made to notify us immediately so that it can be corrected.
Errare humanum est! But to correct it is a duty.
Our leitmotif at all times is and shall remain:
Based on recent developments and new information obtained, some of the posts on this blog have been updated to reflect new information and to remove information that may have the potential to misinform or misstate facts.
In an effort to remain objective and factual but still represent my personal experiences and views I also have the responsibility to be fair and balanced.
Please note that the edits made largely relate to one issue and one issue alone--to a person who was mentioned in this blog and shall remain unnamed--who has proved in my current experience to be other than how he was previously portrayed.
The edits, however, do not change any information or comments relating to the two malfeasors, Benham and Horn, or their co-conspirators, especially Ms Joan Ross.
It is my intention at all times to be fair, honest, frank, civil in my disclosures and comments and urge any reader who has good faith cause to believe an error may have been made to notify us immediately so that it can be corrected.
Errare humanum est! But to correct it is a duty.
Our leitmotif at all times is and shall remain:
'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'
(Edmund Burke in 'Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents')
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Bombastic Burnout ...
One characteristic of the sociopathic tendency of the Internet trolls who trade in abuse and defamation is the fact that they are induced to seething when they find that no matter what they publish it does not elicit the desired response from the victim. If the victim remains level-headed and cool and doesn't jump in no matter how vile, vulgar or profane the abuser/defamer gets and no matter how fantastic or ludicrous his rants, the abuser/defamer works himself into a veritable frenzy, very frequently into flights of hyperbolic hysteria, desperation.
Now, using our two illustrative examples, Mr Horne and Mr Benham, if one has the intestinal fortitude to read their rants, we find that for lack of anything substantial they are: ridiculously repetitive, vulgar and profane, lack any semblance of logic or direction, go on and on and on, provide no opportunity for the reader to reflect (on what, really, the ad nauseum repetition of the same idle accusations and pseudo-justifications), and all of this is offensively abusive to the readers' sense of propriety and decency.
Mr Benham and Mr Horne have succeeded only in becoming concrete examples of the type of evil we would otherwise be hard put to adequately portray without the examples of their malconduct.
If one reads their posts one can form a mental picture of these two caricatures running around trying to figure out what next to post, how to articulate the next insult, what to say at all.
If it weren't so remarkably pathetic it would be funny but when two grown men descend to that depth of depravity it is never funny; their abysmal desperation is showing.
The strategy for causing bombasts to burn out is to tickle them into talking and directing their diatribes. They no longer care whether they make any sense at all because their sole audience is each other and you are in control with a surgical approach to directing their burnout process.
Try it some time with a nasty neighbor. Just be rational, cool, unflappable, courteous, articulate and watch her seethe and ultimately fizzle. Works every time with abusers/defamers, nasty neighbors, and so-called "brilliant journalists" (I'm thinking of Mr Scott Waldman). Never, but never lose your cool or respond to insults or offer any defense when confronted with false facts in real life or in response to the Internet abuser/defamer. One should and can respond only to true facts and by the very nature of abuse and defamation, the facts offered are necessarily false.
Another operational approach is to lure them on but give them nothing; they'll take the bait and talk, talk, talk and ultimately make the BIG mistake and you'll be there ... waiting. Good luck!
Now, using our two illustrative examples, Mr Horne and Mr Benham, if one has the intestinal fortitude to read their rants, we find that for lack of anything substantial they are: ridiculously repetitive, vulgar and profane, lack any semblance of logic or direction, go on and on and on, provide no opportunity for the reader to reflect (on what, really, the ad nauseum repetition of the same idle accusations and pseudo-justifications), and all of this is offensively abusive to the readers' sense of propriety and decency.
Mr Benham and Mr Horne have succeeded only in becoming concrete examples of the type of evil we would otherwise be hard put to adequately portray without the examples of their malconduct.
If one reads their posts one can form a mental picture of these two caricatures running around trying to figure out what next to post, how to articulate the next insult, what to say at all.
If it weren't so remarkably pathetic it would be funny but when two grown men descend to that depth of depravity it is never funny; their abysmal desperation is showing.
The strategy for causing bombasts to burn out is to tickle them into talking and directing their diatribes. They no longer care whether they make any sense at all because their sole audience is each other and you are in control with a surgical approach to directing their burnout process.
Try it some time with a nasty neighbor. Just be rational, cool, unflappable, courteous, articulate and watch her seethe and ultimately fizzle. Works every time with abusers/defamers, nasty neighbors, and so-called "brilliant journalists" (I'm thinking of Mr Scott Waldman). Never, but never lose your cool or respond to insults or offer any defense when confronted with false facts in real life or in response to the Internet abuser/defamer. One should and can respond only to true facts and by the very nature of abuse and defamation, the facts offered are necessarily false.
Another operational approach is to lure them on but give them nothing; they'll take the bait and talk, talk, talk and ultimately make the BIG mistake and you'll be there ... waiting. Good luck!
Now who could this be ...
Well, someone really LOVES this blog ... 144 return visits in about a week's time! Someone needs a job ... or a life!
Returning Visits: 144
Location: Montpellier Languedoc-Roussillon, France
Hostname: 194.2.179.122
Entry Page: bg-internet-abuse.blogspot.com
Exit Page: bg-internet-abuse.blogspot.com/
Referring URL: bg-internet-abuse.blogspot.com/haroldwvadney.blogspot.com/
Any guesses who this baby might be?
Returning Visits: 144
Location: Montpellier Languedoc-Roussillon, France
Hostname: 194.2.179.122
Entry Page: bg-internet-abuse.blogspot.com
Exit Page: bg-internet-abuse.blogspot.com/
Referring URL: bg-internet-abuse.blogspot.com/haroldwvadney.blogspot.com/
Any guesses who this baby might be?
Sorry, but it's interesting ... Expatriate Horne?
Sorry, but I can't resist posting a tidbit that is truly "extraordinary":
According to information from an unofficial source, Mr Scott Horne isn't even a 'real' Canadian living in Montréal but is an American expatriate. But why Canada? That's an interesting question but one for which we'll have to wait for an answer. We'll go to the official sources for the facts.
But I'm really curious about my inquiries with the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol and am wondering what they're going to come up with now that we have this curious bit of intelligence.
Usually, expatriates find somewhere culturally stimulating like Paris or the like or somewhere exotic like Bali. The only real expatriates we usually hear of going to Canada from the USA are draft-dodgers or criminals who are attempting to escape apprehension. Would that perhaps explain Mr Horne's aliases: Patrick S. Horne a.k.a. P. Scott Horne a.k.a. Scott Horne? (Note well and understand clearly: This does not imply expressly or by innuendo that this makes Mr Horne a suspect of prior unlawful conduct nor that it was the reason for his expatriation. Nor is this a suggestion that having multiple aliases or engaging in known criminal behavior makes one ipso facto a criminal; that determination must be made by legitimate law enforcement bodies and decided by the courts.)
If he's so hot of a translator wouldn't somewhere like New York, Washington D.C., Seattle or somewhere with a booming Asian economic connection be the place to be? But why actually expatriate one's self, if he has actually done so? If this is bland rumor, I need Mr Horne to say so and I'll certainly correct this post!
Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying, though. If you want to expatriate and some state wants to pick you up, please do. Canada has been known to be very eager to pull in population, especially in borderline Québec and Montréal. If they allowed Mr Horne in that's their business. Either way, the connections are of interest.
Could become difficult if Mr Horne is found to have involved himself in criminal activity while in Canada, especially as an alleged American expatriate violating American law while in Canada. Can't you lose your adopted citizenship for something like that?
Oh, well ... back to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Montréal ... they'll know what to do. I'll just send the URL to Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's blog site.
If Mr Horne would like to elaborate, he can do so to my private e-mail.
According to information from an unofficial source, Mr Scott Horne isn't even a 'real' Canadian living in Montréal but is an American expatriate. But why Canada? That's an interesting question but one for which we'll have to wait for an answer. We'll go to the official sources for the facts.
But I'm really curious about my inquiries with the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol and am wondering what they're going to come up with now that we have this curious bit of intelligence.
Usually, expatriates find somewhere culturally stimulating like Paris or the like or somewhere exotic like Bali. The only real expatriates we usually hear of going to Canada from the USA are draft-dodgers or criminals who are attempting to escape apprehension. Would that perhaps explain Mr Horne's aliases: Patrick S. Horne a.k.a. P. Scott Horne a.k.a. Scott Horne? (Note well and understand clearly: This does not imply expressly or by innuendo that this makes Mr Horne a suspect of prior unlawful conduct nor that it was the reason for his expatriation. Nor is this a suggestion that having multiple aliases or engaging in known criminal behavior makes one ipso facto a criminal; that determination must be made by legitimate law enforcement bodies and decided by the courts.)
If he's so hot of a translator wouldn't somewhere like New York, Washington D.C., Seattle or somewhere with a booming Asian economic connection be the place to be? But why actually expatriate one's self, if he has actually done so? If this is bland rumor, I need Mr Horne to say so and I'll certainly correct this post!
Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying, though. If you want to expatriate and some state wants to pick you up, please do. Canada has been known to be very eager to pull in population, especially in borderline Québec and Montréal. If they allowed Mr Horne in that's their business. Either way, the connections are of interest.
Could become difficult if Mr Horne is found to have involved himself in criminal activity while in Canada, especially as an alleged American expatriate violating American law while in Canada. Can't you lose your adopted citizenship for something like that?
Oh, well ... back to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Montréal ... they'll know what to do. I'll just send the URL to Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's blog site.
If Mr Horne would like to elaborate, he can do so to my private e-mail.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Credentials Inc. and DegreeChk
There is a plethora of organizations on the Internet offering personal information for payment. Credentials Inc. or DegreeChk is one of them. But even Credentials Inc. have terms of service and a so-called registration process. Not that it will do much to protect you.
For those interested in an older post regarding Richard Benahm having fraudulently obtained information, albeit incorrect information, from the organization called Credentials Inc. or DegreeChk, I would challenge Mr Benham to provide the documentation of how he complied with Credential Inc.'s terms of service in the following areas or, in the alternative, if he did not comply with these requirements, how he managed to obtain what he represents to be accurate, truthful information? How about it Mr Benham?
From the DegreeChk Service Agreement
"You certify and agree that you, or the company you represent, have a legal release from the subject of your inquiry or a license to conduct background checks on individuals and that you will not use the information for purposes prohibited by law or for providing advice to any other entities."
"It is understood and agreed that the information is for the internal use only of your firm or the organization you are authorized to represent."
"Credentials therefore makes no representations, warranties (express, implied or statutory) or covenants with respect to the condition, quality, completeness or suitability of the information provided."
"In general, degree and enrollment verification services offered by Credentials are available only to "registered users". Before using these services you must first register yourself. ... If you are a registered user, then you have agreed to the terms and conditions of our Service Agreement during registration, you warrant that you have legitimately obtained the necessary written authorization from the person being verified to use that individual's personally identifying information, i.e. non-directory information such as Social Security number, birth date, etc., in the verification process."
From the DegreeChk Process Overview Page
"Your best results will be achieved if you supply Social Security Number, Date of Birth, complete name and/or prior name)."
If Benham made a false certification to obtain the information, we call that fraud; alternatively, if Credentials Inc. provided their incorrect information to Benham in violation of their own terms of service, then there are severe legal implications here under United State Law and the State University of New York will be answerable for the malconduct of its agents. So, what's the story Mr Benham? I'm sure you have one for us.
Legal Note for Mr Scott Horne's benefit: To be implicated in a conspiracy requires only that you have knowledge of the conspiracy and do nothing to prevent it. Even if you leave the association of conspirators and they realize the conspiracy, you are still part of the conspiracy. Your friend, Joan Ross, should know more about this so you may want to discuss it with her very soon ... maybe she'll provide some support of your legal representation or defense.
And then you wonder why Benham is being investigated from so many quarters?!?!
For those interested in an older post regarding Richard Benahm having fraudulently obtained information, albeit incorrect information, from the organization called Credentials Inc. or DegreeChk, I would challenge Mr Benham to provide the documentation of how he complied with Credential Inc.'s terms of service in the following areas or, in the alternative, if he did not comply with these requirements, how he managed to obtain what he represents to be accurate, truthful information? How about it Mr Benham?
From the DegreeChk Service Agreement
"You certify and agree that you, or the company you represent, have a legal release from the subject of your inquiry or a license to conduct background checks on individuals and that you will not use the information for purposes prohibited by law or for providing advice to any other entities."
"It is understood and agreed that the information is for the internal use only of your firm or the organization you are authorized to represent."
"Credentials therefore makes no representations, warranties (express, implied or statutory) or covenants with respect to the condition, quality, completeness or suitability of the information provided."
"In general, degree and enrollment verification services offered by Credentials are available only to "registered users". Before using these services you must first register yourself. ... If you are a registered user, then you have agreed to the terms and conditions of our Service Agreement during registration, you warrant that you have legitimately obtained the necessary written authorization from the person being verified to use that individual's personally identifying information, i.e. non-directory information such as Social Security number, birth date, etc., in the verification process."
From the DegreeChk Process Overview Page
"Your best results will be achieved if you supply Social Security Number, Date of Birth, complete name and/or prior name)."
If Benham made a false certification to obtain the information, we call that fraud; alternatively, if Credentials Inc. provided their incorrect information to Benham in violation of their own terms of service, then there are severe legal implications here under United State Law and the State University of New York will be answerable for the malconduct of its agents. So, what's the story Mr Benham? I'm sure you have one for us.
Legal Note for Mr Scott Horne's benefit: To be implicated in a conspiracy requires only that you have knowledge of the conspiracy and do nothing to prevent it. Even if you leave the association of conspirators and they realize the conspiracy, you are still part of the conspiracy. Your friend, Joan Ross, should know more about this so you may want to discuss it with her very soon ... maybe she'll provide some support of your legal representation or defense.
And then you wonder why Benham is being investigated from so many quarters?!?!
Back on Track ... Requiem for Benham and Horne
It's time to move on and get this blog back on track. It's all about Internet Abuse and Defamation. We all acknowledge that these problems exist. We all acknowledge that it is a problem. We all can acknowledge that it is wrong.
Up to now we have had first-hand experience and examples of how it works and what it leads to. We have actual persons who have done it, done it with impugnity, done it to a number of persons, have done it without legitimate purpose, and are continuing it. That's got to stop.
But, obviously, the way to stop them is not by street-fighting but by lawful means and that is in preparation and as the events develop, I hope to post an update now and then.
The only thing that will put a lid on the evils that idleness, anger and personal unhappiness breed will be to keep a level head and move on.
Unless something extraordinary develops, I shall try to avoid any further comment on Mr Richard Benham and Mr Scott Horne. What more can be said about them. Old news.
I need to establish the credibility of this blog and its contents by publishing news of interest on the subject. Benham and Horne will continue to serve as examples of some of the worst abuses but flogging a dead horse and dead intellects does not serve the avowed purpose of this blog: to create a venue for intelligent discussion and viable, practicable solutions to the problem.
So, goodbye for now Mr Benham, Mr Horne. You no longer have a venue here nor a presence. You are archived as one would archive oddities in a pathology museum. Do what you like, where you like, when you like. We don't care any more. Say Goodbye!
Now ... back to the real world.
Up to now we have had first-hand experience and examples of how it works and what it leads to. We have actual persons who have done it, done it with impugnity, done it to a number of persons, have done it without legitimate purpose, and are continuing it. That's got to stop.
But, obviously, the way to stop them is not by street-fighting but by lawful means and that is in preparation and as the events develop, I hope to post an update now and then.
The only thing that will put a lid on the evils that idleness, anger and personal unhappiness breed will be to keep a level head and move on.
Unless something extraordinary develops, I shall try to avoid any further comment on Mr Richard Benham and Mr Scott Horne. What more can be said about them. Old news.
I need to establish the credibility of this blog and its contents by publishing news of interest on the subject. Benham and Horne will continue to serve as examples of some of the worst abuses but flogging a dead horse and dead intellects does not serve the avowed purpose of this blog: to create a venue for intelligent discussion and viable, practicable solutions to the problem.
So, goodbye for now Mr Benham, Mr Horne. You no longer have a venue here nor a presence. You are archived as one would archive oddities in a pathology museum. Do what you like, where you like, when you like. We don't care any more. Say Goodbye!
Now ... back to the real world.
Werner Patels Is Not Involved in Any Way!
"People can disagree on their perception or definition of professional standards; that does not mean you have to defame those you disagree with."
I have taken the liberty to lift that quotation from a very impressive, civil, enlightened missive I received from Mr Werner Patels and I would encourage all who read this to give some thought to that succinct and embracing sentence. While it applies very materially to the subject-matter of this blog it has general, almost universal application to avoiding malconduct.
Mr Patels' past enthusiasm for his principles and his unique style of expressing his principles and addressing his correspondents may have regrettably overshadowed an underlying sensitive man, a sharp intellect (though not as sharp as his former tongue was ;) ), and an understanding of what is going on in the undercurrents of the things Benham and Horne have been publishing.
My personal correspondence with Mr Patels has revealed a person other than the figure that one may find if one searches the Internet and, in my opinion, I would say that Mr Patels for one reason or another may have experienced a situation similar to my own and so has some sensitivity for it.
While I cannot say that Mr Patels has been a paradigm of decorum in the past and that some of his writings did not go over the top, I am very, very pleased to have made the acquaintance of a different Mr Patels: one that is indubitably unique and intelligent but one through whom a rich vein of perspicuity and compassion runs.
I am grateful to Mr Patels for showing me this heretofore unknown and hence unappreciated aspect of his person and I sincerely hope I have not embarassed him by this posting but he does deserve this acknowledgement.
This is an elegant example of how right-thinking adults behave. If there is a possible misunderstanding or a problem, communicate. If there is a misunderstanding or mistake correct it and move on with life. That's how right-thinking, productive, honorable persons behave. Thank you Mr Patels for providing this instructing example.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Threatening, Uncivil, Abusive Posts and Comments Rejected
Mr Benham and Mr Horne have been notified that posts and comments to this blog site are subject to moderation and any posts that are uncivil, aggressive, abusive or otherwise inappropriate will be summarily rejected. In contrast, Mr Benahm and Mr Horne have been expressly informed that we shall be pleased to publish any comments that are civil and are not inflammatory or threatening.
Mr Benham moderates his blog (and, as I have mentioned in previous posts, has usurped a moderator position using the assumed name "Dina" with the Institute of Linguists discussion forums) and exercises--and often misuses--a blog owner's or moderator's discretion in deciding who posts and what gets published based on his current agenda. Mr Benham has already stated explicitly that he does not allow me to post comments to his site.
Moreover, Mr Benham expressly states in one of his many comments to his own postings: "... and that the Vadney has posted no fewer than three comments on my blog (the third I deleted, because it came after I warned him to stop commenting on my blog). Actually, the only persons posting on Benham's blog is Benham himself and Mr Scott Horne, which is quite natural for Benham's blogs, but his many profane diatribes peppered with profanity and insults posing as comments are, well, a bit ludicrous.
Mr Benham: Facts, you know what they are, don't you?
Mr Benham moderates his blog (and, as I have mentioned in previous posts, has usurped a moderator position using the assumed name "Dina" with the Institute of Linguists discussion forums) and exercises--and often misuses--a blog owner's or moderator's discretion in deciding who posts and what gets published based on his current agenda. Mr Benham has already stated explicitly that he does not allow me to post comments to his site.
Moreover, Mr Benham expressly states in one of his many comments to his own postings: "... and that the Vadney has posted no fewer than three comments on my blog (the third I deleted, because it came after I warned him to stop commenting on my blog). Actually, the only persons posting on Benham's blog is Benham himself and Mr Scott Horne, which is quite natural for Benham's blogs, but his many profane diatribes peppered with profanity and insults posing as comments are, well, a bit ludicrous.
Mr Benham: Facts, you know what they are, don't you?
There's no "spat" Mr Benham
Mr Benham writes incorrectly: "A spat seems to have developed between the Vadney and Mr Werner Patels." There is no spat or dispute with Mr Patels. Mr Patels has made his statements and I have made mine. End of story. I think Mr Patels and I are quite content to leave it at that.
Mr Benham writes about Mr Patels: "I know that Mr Werner Patels has been a controversial figure, and I am aware of some of the disputes he has been embroiled in, but [I] was never in possession of the full details of any of them, and so decline to take a position on them. I can say that Werner has strong views and a sharp tongue ... ." The Werner Patels of the past built a rather questionable reputation for himself among quite a number of people in the past but to deny that people change and become better persons would be not only unfair but downright ignorant. One can hardly disagree that Mr Patels has changed--greatly--but remains a very principles and at time opinionated and very acute intellect. That we can't take away from him and won't. We all have our styles, though, and have every right to portray ourselves in the manner we choose--even if it ain't pretty--but no one should be condemned for past sins after cleaning one's act up. That's the whole rationale behind human development.
Mr Benham appears to be the self-appointed arbiter of just about everyone and everything, everywhere. He appoints himself and his deputy Scott Horne to pass judgment and to publish their judgments on anyone they please -- regardless of the spurious nature of their factoids and the fragmentary nature of their information or the questionable reliability of their sources -- Benham even writes that he has "...some fundamental differences with them [the Chartered Institute of Linguists]. On a couple of occasions, I [Benham] have downloaded the membership application form, with a view to trying to reform the system from within ... ." Now Benham, in his puffed up, reprehensible arrogance, presumes he, Benham, should "reform [the Chartered Institute of Linguists] from within"! Talk about megalomania!
At the risk of descending to the crass level of Benham's and Horne's level of factoidal and vulgar discussion, I wonder if Benham is suffering from the psychological phenomenon of projection ... projecting one's own unacceptable perceptions of self onto another ... or so-called pseudologia ... believing one's own lies. Why? Because if Mr Benham truely received any true facts from anyone, but especially from the Chartered Institute of Linguists, for example, he would know that the very diploma awarded to Harold W. Vadney reads explicitly: "Having satisfied the qualifying requirements prescribed by the council ... was elected a Member of the Institute of Linguists". It's in black and white. End of story.
While Mr Benham, Mr Horne have made numerous presumptive statements on various translators' credentials and their abilities, Benham and Horne have no credible qualifications, credentials, accreditations, or authorities whatsoever to make any statements on anyone else's credentials or competencies whatsoever. Who, may we ask ourselves, appointed Benahm and Horne or Patels to the examination panel?
Finally, and a very salient telling example indeed of Benham's and Horne's wanton and reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of their defamatory publications: A person accosted by Benham and Horne as having "falsified her credentials" makes the very apropos point that Benham [and Horne] know of her only by her married name. Her degrees were earned under her maiden name! But that is of no concern to Horne and Benham. She's been publicly labeled a charalatan by Benham and Horne because Benham and Horne with all of their "resources" could not verify her claimed credentials.
What resources, Mr Benham, Mr Horne? You can't even keep a discussion forum going (apart from the discussion à deux you two are entertaining to the amusement of the blogging community) and have become anathema to most while apparently maintaining any public presence only on your own blog ... having been banned or put on notification on most if not all professional translating forums that require you to register under your real names. But of course, "Dina" a.k.a. Richard D. Benham, wants to "reform" the IoL from within ..." perhaps by usurping the IoL discussion forums under a presumed and fake name, "Dina"!
How dare you Mr Benham and Mr Horne paint yourselves as the arbiters of ethics and professionalism and how dare you both have anything to say about anyone whomsoever!
Mr Benham writes about Mr Patels: "I know that Mr Werner Patels has been a controversial figure, and I am aware of some of the disputes he has been embroiled in, but [I] was never in possession of the full details of any of them, and so decline to take a position on them. I can say that Werner has strong views and a sharp tongue ... ." The Werner Patels of the past built a rather questionable reputation for himself among quite a number of people in the past but to deny that people change and become better persons would be not only unfair but downright ignorant. One can hardly disagree that Mr Patels has changed--greatly--but remains a very principles and at time opinionated and very acute intellect. That we can't take away from him and won't. We all have our styles, though, and have every right to portray ourselves in the manner we choose--even if it ain't pretty--but no one should be condemned for past sins after cleaning one's act up. That's the whole rationale behind human development.
Mr Benham appears to be the self-appointed arbiter of just about everyone and everything, everywhere. He appoints himself and his deputy Scott Horne to pass judgment and to publish their judgments on anyone they please -- regardless of the spurious nature of their factoids and the fragmentary nature of their information or the questionable reliability of their sources -- Benham even writes that he has "...some fundamental differences with them [the Chartered Institute of Linguists]. On a couple of occasions, I [Benham] have downloaded the membership application form, with a view to trying to reform the system from within ... ." Now Benham, in his puffed up, reprehensible arrogance, presumes he, Benham, should "reform [the Chartered Institute of Linguists] from within"! Talk about megalomania!
At the risk of descending to the crass level of Benham's and Horne's level of factoidal and vulgar discussion, I wonder if Benham is suffering from the psychological phenomenon of projection ... projecting one's own unacceptable perceptions of self onto another ... or so-called pseudologia ... believing one's own lies. Why? Because if Mr Benham truely received any true facts from anyone, but especially from the Chartered Institute of Linguists, for example, he would know that the very diploma awarded to Harold W. Vadney reads explicitly: "Having satisfied the qualifying requirements prescribed by the council ... was elected a Member of the Institute of Linguists". It's in black and white. End of story.
While Mr Benham, Mr Horne have made numerous presumptive statements on various translators' credentials and their abilities, Benham and Horne have no credible qualifications, credentials, accreditations, or authorities whatsoever to make any statements on anyone else's credentials or competencies whatsoever. Who, may we ask ourselves, appointed Benahm and Horne or Patels to the examination panel?
Finally, and a very salient telling example indeed of Benham's and Horne's wanton and reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of their defamatory publications: A person accosted by Benham and Horne as having "falsified her credentials" makes the very apropos point that Benham [and Horne] know of her only by her married name. Her degrees were earned under her maiden name! But that is of no concern to Horne and Benham. She's been publicly labeled a charalatan by Benham and Horne because Benham and Horne with all of their "resources" could not verify her claimed credentials.
What resources, Mr Benham, Mr Horne? You can't even keep a discussion forum going (apart from the discussion à deux you two are entertaining to the amusement of the blogging community) and have become anathema to most while apparently maintaining any public presence only on your own blog ... having been banned or put on notification on most if not all professional translating forums that require you to register under your real names. But of course, "Dina" a.k.a. Richard D. Benham, wants to "reform" the IoL from within ..." perhaps by usurping the IoL discussion forums under a presumed and fake name, "Dina"!
How dare you Mr Benham and Mr Horne paint yourselves as the arbiters of ethics and professionalism and how dare you both have anything to say about anyone whomsoever!
Mr Werner Patels Responds
Mr Werner Patels has responded with a comment to our posting regarding Mr Scott Horne's contribution to Mr Patels blog.
I will simply say that Mr Patels, wisely, refuses to get involved in what he correctly calls "nonsense". In fact, Mr Patels states:
"About a year ago I was contacted by your opponents and I made myself perfectly clear, as I did in my public statement on my blog, that I am not, nor will I ever be, involved in this nonsense that's been going on between you all."
The interesting development is that Mr Patels clearly states that "about a year ago" he was contacted by my "opponents". This is interesting because the obvious question is who are these "opponents" to whom Mr Patels is referring.
Mr Patels: Would you please identify them for us? We would like to expressly ask you to identify by name the "opponents" who contacted you. Would you please do that? You may do so privately by comment on this blog. Mr Patels has complied with our request.
We shall be very happy to allow any comments, in support or in opposition, with the proviso that they address the material and relevant issues forming the subject-matter of this blog. We will not under any circumstances publish any comment that is abusive, insulting, obscene or aggressive. We expressly invite visitors' comments but must insist that they be civil.
Thank you!
I will simply say that Mr Patels, wisely, refuses to get involved in what he correctly calls "nonsense". In fact, Mr Patels states:
"About a year ago I was contacted by your opponents and I made myself perfectly clear, as I did in my public statement on my blog, that I am not, nor will I ever be, involved in this nonsense that's been going on between you all."
The interesting development is that Mr Patels clearly states that "about a year ago" he was contacted by my "opponents". This is interesting because the obvious question is who are these "opponents" to whom Mr Patels is referring.
Mr Patels: Would you please identify them for us? We would like to expressly ask you to identify by name the "opponents" who contacted you. Would you please do that? You may do so privately by comment on this blog. Mr Patels has complied with our request.
We shall be very happy to allow any comments, in support or in opposition, with the proviso that they address the material and relevant issues forming the subject-matter of this blog. We will not under any circumstances publish any comment that is abusive, insulting, obscene or aggressive. We expressly invite visitors' comments but must insist that they be civil.
Thank you!
Friday, January 18, 2008
Scott Horne Deleted from Yet Another Blog
Some time ago we mentioned a similarity between an individual who frequented professional translators' sites and, because of his alacrity and ad hominem contributions, managed to get himself banned from just about everywhere because of what were perceived--rightly or wrongly--as unjustified attacks or unacceptable conduct. It would be unfair to mention the individual's name without personal, direct knowledge of the facts.
Now we are informed that Mr Scott Horne had been communicating with that individual and Mr Horne was exposed, as it were, and 'rejected' for lack of a better term.
Same old, same old. No one has any true facts but plenty to say. But at least the unnamed individual has provided a link to this blog and, upon reflection, spontaneously decided to remove his comments on me and to delete Mr Horne's postings from his blog site.
The only conclusion to be drawn from such ethical and prudent behavior is that "unnamed"is a truly ethical, prudent person and not necessarily the monster some have painted him to have been.
Now we are informed that Mr Scott Horne had been communicating with that individual and Mr Horne was exposed, as it were, and 'rejected' for lack of a better term.
Same old, same old. No one has any true facts but plenty to say. But at least the unnamed individual has provided a link to this blog and, upon reflection, spontaneously decided to remove his comments on me and to delete Mr Horne's postings from his blog site.
The only conclusion to be drawn from such ethical and prudent behavior is that "unnamed"is a truly ethical, prudent person and not necessarily the monster some have painted him to have been.
Clare Lorimer Gone
We have been informed that Ms Clare Lorimer, one of Richard Benham's so-called "sources" of information for Benham's false and misleading defamatory publications, is "no longer with the Institute of Linguists". We can read into that statement anything we want, I suppose. But it seems that Benham's websites and his informants are not very long-lived when it comes down to closer scrutiny and good faith investigation. The Chartered Institute of Linguists has asked for information to assist in investigating Benham, who claims to be a member of the cIoL, and Horne, who appears not to be a member of anything at all.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The Depths of Depravity
In a summarized comment: Readers have only to look at the quality of the comments and the presentation to get a real glimpse of the characters and minds [sic[k]] behind the words. Mr Benham and Mr Horne have from the start used fabrication, ambush, lies and obscenities to smear and harm. Two individuals, Benham and Horne, have spent apparently untold resources to create soapboxes they refer to as blogs but in reality are merely opportunities to spread their vile and obscene remarks. I have already commented on their foul language but they continue to descend into the depths of depravity, not having any other more impressive vocabulary or tactics than four-letter words and name-calling.
Sorry, Mr Benham and Mr Horne, your foul mouths and lack of substantance in your allegations cannot be made up for by your foul language and your ad hominem, personal attacks by way of name-calling. It appears you have not gone beyond a prepubescent mentality. But no matter, your baseness, foulness and lack of character is revealed by the depravity of your writing.
Anyone with any self-respect and intellect will read your postings and identify you two for what you are: very maladjusted and pitiful individuals who are heading for a well deserved but likewise pitiful end.
Your statements are so hyperbolic and uncredible you should be embarassed for that alone. Why then do you have to use such foul language? Reading your postings (I cannot comment on Benham and Horne's blog because Benham or Horne moderates and deletes my comments) is reminiscent of Ms Joan Ross' deposition testimony and her foul mouth and very fertile fantasy. She, too, is a veritable bombast but her language is shocking! When her deposition testimony is read to the jury, I can just imagine the impression ... probably the same impression of shock, disgust, condemnation of her as when reads Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's dialogues on their blog.
My pleasure is that the more Messrs' Benham and Horne post, the deeper the hole they dig for themselves. Self-destructive disorder is a pitiable affliction but Hey! they've been counseled.
Sorry, Mr Benham and Mr Horne, your foul mouths and lack of substantance in your allegations cannot be made up for by your foul language and your ad hominem, personal attacks by way of name-calling. It appears you have not gone beyond a prepubescent mentality. But no matter, your baseness, foulness and lack of character is revealed by the depravity of your writing.
Anyone with any self-respect and intellect will read your postings and identify you two for what you are: very maladjusted and pitiful individuals who are heading for a well deserved but likewise pitiful end.
Your statements are so hyperbolic and uncredible you should be embarassed for that alone. Why then do you have to use such foul language? Reading your postings (I cannot comment on Benham and Horne's blog because Benham or Horne moderates and deletes my comments) is reminiscent of Ms Joan Ross' deposition testimony and her foul mouth and very fertile fantasy. She, too, is a veritable bombast but her language is shocking! When her deposition testimony is read to the jury, I can just imagine the impression ... probably the same impression of shock, disgust, condemnation of her as when reads Mr Benham's and Mr Horne's dialogues on their blog.
My pleasure is that the more Messrs' Benham and Horne post, the deeper the hole they dig for themselves. Self-destructive disorder is a pitiable affliction but Hey! they've been counseled.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Search the Names + Get the Hits
We are very pleased with the number of hits that googling the names Benham, Horne, Ross, etc. produces. This blog and its entries comes up prominently for each of those keywords and their combinations. Kudos to Blogger!
If this performance is true for most of the blogs using labels for postings, this Blogger resource is a real gem!
If this performance is true for most of the blogs using labels for postings, this Blogger resource is a real gem!
Mr Benham, "Dina", be a man!
This is a message for the personal attention of Mr Richard D. Benham, a.k.a. "Dina": Instead of sending your ridiculous e-mails to me using your ridiculous alias to continue your silly, childish harassments and, instead of posting Lord knows how many ludicrous pseudo-blogs, why don't you just say where you are and use a real e-mail address so we can confront you directly. If you have a case, Mr Benham, please bring it. Let's stop all your silly unsubstantial accusations, fabricated facts, misrepresentations and just be adult and have some guts and say where you are so we can have a controlled, civilized, well documented and factual day in court., so-to-speak. Isn't that the way it should be done? If you have a complaint or something to say, let's do it in a controlled environment, like a courtroom, with a non-partisan, objective panel to decide if you are right or wrong. Your cowardly conduct and silly harassments and conspiracies are accomplishing nothing but making you and your fawning accomplice Mr Scott Horne (Montréal) look like buffoons. Is that what you want?
WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO HIDE????
Look, you are out there hiding somewhere and misusing the Internet and its resources to ambush, harm and hide. You use fake e-mail addresses to sneak in the back door and you don't have the guts to face your victims. You post imbecilic attacks on what you'd like to call blogs but what are in reality just another soapbox for you and Mr Scott Horne.
You know where I am and you know how to contact me. I'm really OK with that. I am ready to confront you but only in an adult manner and not as shadow boxers. But you? What are you afraid of? Why don't you just say where you are, what real facts you have, admit where and how you got them and let's finish all of this. But let's do it the right way and in a fashion that is permanent, credible and dignified. You can handle that, can't you? How about you, Mr Horne?
At least we know where Mr Horne is or was ... unless he's hiding, too.
We already know that Scott Horne is collaborating with at least one defendant in the local lawsuit and we'll take care of that matter in the proper, lawful way. We also know that Mr Scott Horne is conspiring with you and your attacks. That, too, will be taken care of in a lawful way.
But one dark question still continues to plague us: You know Mr Horne is within law's reach and that he has already been served with a Notice of Claim against him. You know that he will be prosecuted at law! Why do you continue to involve that apparently oblivious, imprudent, silly person in your agenda. You call him your "dear friend". Why are you involving him if he is your "friend"? Hasn't he caused himself enough trouble already by getting actively, obviously, conspicuoulsly involved with Joan Ross who is using him? Hasn't Mr Horne yet awakened to the fact that Ross and Luckacovic have thrown him in to save themselves? Hasn't Mr Horne yet realized that Joan Ross realizes what she is doing and is hiding behind the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating herself -- but that won't help her. She's facing a SECOND lawsuit! (And she'll have the pleasure of going thru that one with Mr Horne at her side. Lovely couple!).
What are you people thinking ... or are you thinking at all?
The only think, Mr Benham and Mr Horne, what you are accomplishing (and I suppose I should be grateful to you both in a bizarre sort of way) is that you are illustrating in the most literal and extravagant manner exactly my point = how the Internet provides a false sense of security for cowards and scoundrels. It would be remiss of me not to thank you both for your contributions to supporting my thesis.
But surely, Mr Benham, or Dina, whichever you prefer today, have some glands and let us know where you are and how to effectively contact you and we can finish this up very quickly.
WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO HIDE????
Look, you are out there hiding somewhere and misusing the Internet and its resources to ambush, harm and hide. You use fake e-mail addresses to sneak in the back door and you don't have the guts to face your victims. You post imbecilic attacks on what you'd like to call blogs but what are in reality just another soapbox for you and Mr Scott Horne.
You know where I am and you know how to contact me. I'm really OK with that. I am ready to confront you but only in an adult manner and not as shadow boxers. But you? What are you afraid of? Why don't you just say where you are, what real facts you have, admit where and how you got them and let's finish all of this. But let's do it the right way and in a fashion that is permanent, credible and dignified. You can handle that, can't you? How about you, Mr Horne?
At least we know where Mr Horne is or was ... unless he's hiding, too.
We already know that Scott Horne is collaborating with at least one defendant in the local lawsuit and we'll take care of that matter in the proper, lawful way. We also know that Mr Scott Horne is conspiring with you and your attacks. That, too, will be taken care of in a lawful way.
But one dark question still continues to plague us: You know Mr Horne is within law's reach and that he has already been served with a Notice of Claim against him. You know that he will be prosecuted at law! Why do you continue to involve that apparently oblivious, imprudent, silly person in your agenda. You call him your "dear friend". Why are you involving him if he is your "friend"? Hasn't he caused himself enough trouble already by getting actively, obviously, conspicuoulsly involved with Joan Ross who is using him? Hasn't Mr Horne yet awakened to the fact that Ross and Luckacovic have thrown him in to save themselves? Hasn't Mr Horne yet realized that Joan Ross realizes what she is doing and is hiding behind the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating herself -- but that won't help her. She's facing a SECOND lawsuit! (And she'll have the pleasure of going thru that one with Mr Horne at her side. Lovely couple!).
What are you people thinking ... or are you thinking at all?
The only think, Mr Benham and Mr Horne, what you are accomplishing (and I suppose I should be grateful to you both in a bizarre sort of way) is that you are illustrating in the most literal and extravagant manner exactly my point = how the Internet provides a false sense of security for cowards and scoundrels. It would be remiss of me not to thank you both for your contributions to supporting my thesis.
But surely, Mr Benham, or Dina, whichever you prefer today, have some glands and let us know where you are and how to effectively contact you and we can finish this up very quickly.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The Law and the Consequences
What Internet defamers do not seem to grasp is that (1) the defamed does not have to prove the falsity, the defamer has to prove the truth of the statements published, (2) that in a civil defamation lawsuit the presumption in most jurisdictions is that the statements are false and that the defendant must prove the truth of the statements, (3) that jurisdictions generally have established systems of so called "mutual assistance" in both criminal and civil matters. What this means is that a case can be filed in the US and a foreign jurisdiction will cooperate in the investigation phase, the prosecution phase, the enforcement/execution stage. (4) Most defamation (libel and slander) cases not only involve the actual defamation but also secondary counts associated with the defamation or resulting from the defamation. (5) When a case is brought, the defendant must defend against it whether right or wrong; that costs time and money. As a result, everyone loses until the judgment or jury verdict comes in.
Many jurisdictions but most notably Germany, France, Italy, UK have very low tolerance for defamation. Cases brought in US courts have been well received in Canadian courts and vice versa.
It is purest lunacy to run the risk of publishing false or potentially false statements that have the likelihood of harming someone in their reputation or livelihood -- even a single publication makes the publisher libel -- but to publish ongoing, repeated statements in multiple places, even if it's republishing old material banned or deleted elsewhere is playing with a very hot fire.
Malconduct like that makes one seriously doubt the purpose, sanity and moral substance of the malfeasors. What is certain, though, is that their intent is inherently evil; that is, their intent is to literally cause harm, to hurt someone. That's simply wrong-mindedness, simply wrong.
But even more disturbing is the fact that people like Richard Benham and Scott Horne who set themselves up as the arbitors of ethics are themselves the worst violators of any sense of ethics or morality or respect for the legal rights of others and continue to play hit-and-run catch-me-if-you-can types of games without the least awareness that they will be caught as all criminals are. It's only a matter of when and where. But when the axe falls, so do heads.
Even more reprehensible is when entities with broadcast power and large exposure to the public are mislead to believe the puffery of the Benhams and Hornes of the criminal element and actually publish or provide resources for criminals to publish their lies. Internet sites, forums, organizations (like the Chartered Institute of Linguists who have provided a home and base of operations for the Benhams and Hornes) and refuse to take summary action against the criminals, if not only to protect their own intersts.
News media such as newspapers have a special responsibility to the public because of the public's expectation that journalists will have a scintilla of respectability, professionalism and ethics. Not always so. And it's worse when a journalist needs to have a story and is under pressure from and editor write one. The public wants to believe what it reads and the scoundrels know this. Mr Scott Waldman of the Albany Times Union has become the prototype of this type of journalist; that's how he won the admiration and kudos of Richard Benham and Scott Horne: he's one of them.
And then there are those who don't work in the open and circulate their toxins and venom privately by e-mail or members-only sites or on some obscure forum. Now that's truely pernicious and cowardly. But it's happening.
When those sociopaths and their following who feel the Internet offers some sort of invulnerability and that the lies they have told so many times that they have come to believe them are finally debunked and they are either living under a bridge, having lost everything to a civil judgment, or are peering through bars as a guest of the penal system, are finally brought to justice, can we really say that those of us who have maintained our self-respect and dignity have won over the scoundrels and opportunistic cowards. But we all have to work together to achieve this goal and to ensure our own wellbeing because we can't continue to allow Internet defamation to continue and to allow innocent people to be hurt and see the criminals act with impunity and continue their mischief.
Please post your comments.
Many jurisdictions but most notably Germany, France, Italy, UK have very low tolerance for defamation. Cases brought in US courts have been well received in Canadian courts and vice versa.
It is purest lunacy to run the risk of publishing false or potentially false statements that have the likelihood of harming someone in their reputation or livelihood -- even a single publication makes the publisher libel -- but to publish ongoing, repeated statements in multiple places, even if it's republishing old material banned or deleted elsewhere is playing with a very hot fire.
Malconduct like that makes one seriously doubt the purpose, sanity and moral substance of the malfeasors. What is certain, though, is that their intent is inherently evil; that is, their intent is to literally cause harm, to hurt someone. That's simply wrong-mindedness, simply wrong.
But even more disturbing is the fact that people like Richard Benham and Scott Horne who set themselves up as the arbitors of ethics are themselves the worst violators of any sense of ethics or morality or respect for the legal rights of others and continue to play hit-and-run catch-me-if-you-can types of games without the least awareness that they will be caught as all criminals are. It's only a matter of when and where. But when the axe falls, so do heads.
Even more reprehensible is when entities with broadcast power and large exposure to the public are mislead to believe the puffery of the Benhams and Hornes of the criminal element and actually publish or provide resources for criminals to publish their lies. Internet sites, forums, organizations (like the Chartered Institute of Linguists who have provided a home and base of operations for the Benhams and Hornes) and refuse to take summary action against the criminals, if not only to protect their own intersts.
News media such as newspapers have a special responsibility to the public because of the public's expectation that journalists will have a scintilla of respectability, professionalism and ethics. Not always so. And it's worse when a journalist needs to have a story and is under pressure from and editor write one. The public wants to believe what it reads and the scoundrels know this. Mr Scott Waldman of the Albany Times Union has become the prototype of this type of journalist; that's how he won the admiration and kudos of Richard Benham and Scott Horne: he's one of them.
And then there are those who don't work in the open and circulate their toxins and venom privately by e-mail or members-only sites or on some obscure forum. Now that's truely pernicious and cowardly. But it's happening.
When those sociopaths and their following who feel the Internet offers some sort of invulnerability and that the lies they have told so many times that they have come to believe them are finally debunked and they are either living under a bridge, having lost everything to a civil judgment, or are peering through bars as a guest of the penal system, are finally brought to justice, can we really say that those of us who have maintained our self-respect and dignity have won over the scoundrels and opportunistic cowards. But we all have to work together to achieve this goal and to ensure our own wellbeing because we can't continue to allow Internet defamation to continue and to allow innocent people to be hurt and see the criminals act with impunity and continue their mischief.
Please post your comments.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Disappearing Defamers ...
Richard D. Benham, alias "Dina" on the Chartered Institute of Linguists discussion forums, is being sought by a number of concerned parties and he appears to have done what he does best, hit-and-run, scoundrel that he is.
I have received inquires asking if I can provide any information on Benham's whereabouts because he has apparently deleted all personal locator information on himself from all of his profiles and has gone underground.
Benham had previously included contact information and his most recent address in his profiles offering his services as a "translator" but that information has all disappeared.
'Benham Spotters' have placed him in various locales but we need to know exactly where he is so we can keep the authorities informed ... Benham appears to be on the lam. Can it be that the Indonesian authorities have actually taken action against an undesirable and has he been thrown out of Indonesia for his violations of Indonesian law?
If anyone has any information on Richard Davey Benham, alleged "translator" and spook on various forums we would be very grateful for a personal, confidential communication and any information you may have as to his whereabouts.
SCOTT HORNE (alleged "translator" and residing in Montréal, Québec, Canada) appears also to have 'gone underground' since our requests for information on him and his movements were filed with the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol. We would be grateful for any updates on any of Horne's activities. Of course all communications will be kept strictly confidential and if you feel anonymity is best, we will also follow-up on anonymous leads.
Many thanks in advance for your assistance in cleaning up the Internet of the less scrupulous of its denizens.
I have received inquires asking if I can provide any information on Benham's whereabouts because he has apparently deleted all personal locator information on himself from all of his profiles and has gone underground.
Benham had previously included contact information and his most recent address in his profiles offering his services as a "translator" but that information has all disappeared.
'Benham Spotters' have placed him in various locales but we need to know exactly where he is so we can keep the authorities informed ... Benham appears to be on the lam. Can it be that the Indonesian authorities have actually taken action against an undesirable and has he been thrown out of Indonesia for his violations of Indonesian law?
If anyone has any information on Richard Davey Benham, alleged "translator" and spook on various forums we would be very grateful for a personal, confidential communication and any information you may have as to his whereabouts.
SCOTT HORNE (alleged "translator" and residing in Montréal, Québec, Canada) appears also to have 'gone underground' since our requests for information on him and his movements were filed with the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol. We would be grateful for any updates on any of Horne's activities. Of course all communications will be kept strictly confidential and if you feel anonymity is best, we will also follow-up on anonymous leads.
Many thanks in advance for your assistance in cleaning up the Internet of the less scrupulous of its denizens.
Trial Scheduled
A trial date has been set for April 14, 2008, in the matter of Harold W. Vadney v. Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, Richard Bleezarde and Bleezarde Publishing (New York State Supreme Court, Greene County, Index No. 07-0233). After two years of pre-trial preparation, innumerable motions, several pre-trial conferences with the court, this lawsuit is to proceed to a trial before a jury. This lawsuit was brought by Harold Vadney against the defendants for their multiple defamatory publications in 2005 in a local newspaper (the News Herald, Ravena, NY) in which Joan Ross and John Luckacovic published defamatory statements about Harold Vadney and published by Bleezarde Publishing in the News Herald.
At their examinations before trial defendants Ross, Luckacovic and Bleezarde all admitted to having had contacts with Scott Horne and Richard Benham and even produced documents showing the nature of the contacts. Joan Ross, a defendant, had to take the Fifth Amendment protection in order not to incriminate herself through her contacts with Scott Horne.
Civil and criminal investigations are pending and a civil lawsuit is being prepared against a number of parties--particularly Horne, Benham and Ross--involved in the August 2007 defamations (please see past posts to this blog) by Horne, Benham, Ross, Waldman, the Albany Times Union and others. Scott Waldman, the reporter who collaborated with Richard Benham to publish false facts in the Times Union newspaper to scandalize and smear Vadney, will be facing libel charges in a lawsuit to be filed this year.
Stay tuned for the fireworks!
At their examinations before trial defendants Ross, Luckacovic and Bleezarde all admitted to having had contacts with Scott Horne and Richard Benham and even produced documents showing the nature of the contacts. Joan Ross, a defendant, had to take the Fifth Amendment protection in order not to incriminate herself through her contacts with Scott Horne.
Civil and criminal investigations are pending and a civil lawsuit is being prepared against a number of parties--particularly Horne, Benham and Ross--involved in the August 2007 defamations (please see past posts to this blog) by Horne, Benham, Ross, Waldman, the Albany Times Union and others. Scott Waldman, the reporter who collaborated with Richard Benham to publish false facts in the Times Union newspaper to scandalize and smear Vadney, will be facing libel charges in a lawsuit to be filed this year.
Stay tuned for the fireworks!
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Hiding?
Richard Benham or "Dina", as he likes to call his feminine presence, appears to have gone into hiding. He's removed all contact information from his profiles and is sending out red herrings to throw us off his track. That won't work, though. There are too many of us out there watching, waiting and ready to do our part in stopping scoundrels and cowards who misuse the Internet to perpetrate their malconduct.
Same applies to Scott Horne ... suddenly silent. Poof! Gone! In hiding? Where are his details, his profiles? Has he been deleted?
If anyone knows where Richard Davey Benham and Scott Horne a.k.a. P. Scott Horne a.k.a. Patrick Scott Horne are hiding, please share their whereabouts with us. We need to send them some correspondence ;)
We note that Ms Jane Lamb-Ruiz has apparently visiting this blog. Greetings, Jane! How are you?
Same applies to Scott Horne ... suddenly silent. Poof! Gone! In hiding? Where are his details, his profiles? Has he been deleted?
If anyone knows where Richard Davey Benham and Scott Horne a.k.a. P. Scott Horne a.k.a. Patrick Scott Horne are hiding, please share their whereabouts with us. We need to send them some correspondence ;)
We note that Ms Jane Lamb-Ruiz has apparently visiting this blog. Greetings, Jane! How are you?
Monday, January 7, 2008
Horne, Benham, Waldman ... Defendants [again, still]!
We received confirmation today from the Department of the Army that all military decorations claimed by Harold W. Vadney III for his service in the United States Army are INTACT! Contrary to Scott Horne's and Richard Benham's defamatory claims, the United States Army has confirmed in multiple official documents that all decorations awarded to Harold W. Vadney III for his military service from 1972 to 1977, including the Army Commendation Medal, are OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED. In fact, in addition to the written, sealed confirmations, the Department of the Army is forwarding duplicate medals to Harold Vadney.
It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Richard Benham or Scott Horne or their lackey, Times Union reporter, Scott Waldman, to have obtained official information when they say they did without confidential identifiers and, even so, it took almost 20 weeks for Harold Vadney to obtain his own personal information from the DoD! How then, could Benham, Waldman have done so in a matter of hours or days????
One more nail in Benham's, Horne's and Waldman's coffins ... and Ms Ross of New Baltimore will have some explaining to do, too! Jane Lamb-Ruiz? What do you think about your darlings' having mislead YOU? Don't you feel absolutely debased? Stupid?
DegreeChk has been embarassed by Richard Benham's having misrepresented his permissions to obtain personal information and his false certifications. There'll be repercussions there, I'm sure of it. Warning: It's situations like these where institutions make "agents" of for-profit, poorly controlled 'providers' that cause problems. If the State University of New York had not gotten lazy and started authorizing idiots like DegreeChk to provide sensitive information many reputations may have been saved ... and correct reliable information would have been provided. Shame on you, SUNY!
Similar to that 'august' institution represented by the like of Richard D. Benham, the Chartered Institute of Linguists, who will make a statement to the likes of Benham but can't even find its own records! Harold Vadney had to provide the IoL with a copy of the certificate of membership and examination the IoL had issued! No matter, though. The IoL is too lofty to correct its mistake but is base enough to allow Benham, the liar and defamer, to act as a moderator on its IoL Discussion Forums. Is there a foul odor in the air ... is there something rotten at the IoL?
Has Ms Claire Lorimer, officer at the IoL, lifted a finger to investigate anything at all relating to these discrepancies at the IoL? Perhaps when the executive board gets the letter she'll wake up.
Nothing to say, Benham, Horne, Waldman, Lamb-Ruiz?
This is a classic example of how these scoundrels and their ilk have misused the Internet from places as far away from New Baltimore as Montréal, Indonesia, "Near Boston" (Ms Lamb-Ruiz doesn't publish her location) to defame and injure people they have never met before ... and how miscreants like the defendants in the defamation lawsuit now in New York State Supreme Court, Case 07-0233 (Greene County) have enlisted cretins to do their dirty work!
It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Richard Benham or Scott Horne or their lackey, Times Union reporter, Scott Waldman, to have obtained official information when they say they did without confidential identifiers and, even so, it took almost 20 weeks for Harold Vadney to obtain his own personal information from the DoD! How then, could Benham, Waldman have done so in a matter of hours or days????
One more nail in Benham's, Horne's and Waldman's coffins ... and Ms Ross of New Baltimore will have some explaining to do, too! Jane Lamb-Ruiz? What do you think about your darlings' having mislead YOU? Don't you feel absolutely debased? Stupid?
DegreeChk has been embarassed by Richard Benham's having misrepresented his permissions to obtain personal information and his false certifications. There'll be repercussions there, I'm sure of it. Warning: It's situations like these where institutions make "agents" of for-profit, poorly controlled 'providers' that cause problems. If the State University of New York had not gotten lazy and started authorizing idiots like DegreeChk to provide sensitive information many reputations may have been saved ... and correct reliable information would have been provided. Shame on you, SUNY!
Similar to that 'august' institution represented by the like of Richard D. Benham, the Chartered Institute of Linguists, who will make a statement to the likes of Benham but can't even find its own records! Harold Vadney had to provide the IoL with a copy of the certificate of membership and examination the IoL had issued! No matter, though. The IoL is too lofty to correct its mistake but is base enough to allow Benham, the liar and defamer, to act as a moderator on its IoL Discussion Forums. Is there a foul odor in the air ... is there something rotten at the IoL?
Has Ms Claire Lorimer, officer at the IoL, lifted a finger to investigate anything at all relating to these discrepancies at the IoL? Perhaps when the executive board gets the letter she'll wake up.
Nothing to say, Benham, Horne, Waldman, Lamb-Ruiz?
This is a classic example of how these scoundrels and their ilk have misused the Internet from places as far away from New Baltimore as Montréal, Indonesia, "Near Boston" (Ms Lamb-Ruiz doesn't publish her location) to defame and injure people they have never met before ... and how miscreants like the defendants in the defamation lawsuit now in New York State Supreme Court, Case 07-0233 (Greene County) have enlisted cretins to do their dirty work!
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Personal Slights versus Harassment, Conspiracy and Internet Defamation
"Personal slights" are not the subject of this blog as one reader has suggested. It is regrettable that some so-called native speakers of English and self-professed linguists should misapprehend the difference between a malicious agenda of harassment, conspiracy and defamation for no legitimate purpose and "personal slights". Mr Benham and Mr Horne have gone to great lengths, in concert, in a coordinated effort in collaboration with a defendant in a very serious and important lawsuit, to become accessories to that defendant. That defendant has availed herself of the protection of the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating herself while she and a co-defendant have acknowledged Mr Horne's activities. "Personal slight"? No, misdemeanor harassment and criminal conspiracy under the laws of New York and other jurisdictions.
Horne and Benham have gone to great lengths to misuse the Internet to prosecute their malicious agenda not only against me but against others as well.
The Internet is no place for scoundrels and cowards who hide behind the fiction of unreachability they may mistakenly think the Internet provides nor should it be misused by scoundrels and cowards for mischief and malconduct with no ligitimate purpose.
The problem has become very serious indeed and dwarfs the problems of SPAM, e-commerce, Viagra ads and even some forms of licit pornography; though irritating and to some offensive none of these actually do real harm. Internet defamation, however, does real, material and durable harm.
Regrettably, there are people who believe without as much as a second thought much of what they read on the Internet. There are others who simply hide and allow the malfeasors to do their mischief thinking -- mistakenly -- that if they say nothing the criminals will go away. But, dear readers, bullies do not go away when you don't fight back! And that's exactly what these people are who publish scandalous fictions about others: scoundrels, cowards and bullies.
We can live with the odd "personal slight" but when it goes beyond that it becomes serous business.
Thank you.
Horne and Benham have gone to great lengths to misuse the Internet to prosecute their malicious agenda not only against me but against others as well.
The Internet is no place for scoundrels and cowards who hide behind the fiction of unreachability they may mistakenly think the Internet provides nor should it be misused by scoundrels and cowards for mischief and malconduct with no ligitimate purpose.
The problem has become very serious indeed and dwarfs the problems of SPAM, e-commerce, Viagra ads and even some forms of licit pornography; though irritating and to some offensive none of these actually do real harm. Internet defamation, however, does real, material and durable harm.
Regrettably, there are people who believe without as much as a second thought much of what they read on the Internet. There are others who simply hide and allow the malfeasors to do their mischief thinking -- mistakenly -- that if they say nothing the criminals will go away. But, dear readers, bullies do not go away when you don't fight back! And that's exactly what these people are who publish scandalous fictions about others: scoundrels, cowards and bullies.
We can live with the odd "personal slight" but when it goes beyond that it becomes serous business.
Thank you.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Pending Investigations
In addition to the obvious falsifications and misrepresentations published by Richard Benham and his cohort Scott Horne, some of the background investigations and actions taken against Benham and Horne, both completed and pending, include:
Bravenet.com has advised that their request for investigation to Yahoo!Geocities regarding Benham's infringement of copyrighted material has resulted in Yahoo!Geocities requiring Benham to remove all reference to Bravenet.com.
DegreeChk, the credential reporting agency fraudulently used by Benham by falsely certifiying he (Benham) had my permission to use my personal information to obtain information on me (the information received was, in fact, unreliable and incorrect) is continuing its investigation.
Yahoo! has since reported that Richard D. Benham forged his Yahoo! e-mail address.
Chartered Institute of Linguists has been put on final notice to take action on Richard D. Benham's misuse of his moderator position under the pseudonym "Dina" and to report on any action taken against Benham.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, LESC Computer Services Division, Department of Homeland Security - ICE have been notified of Scott Horne's activities and information on his border crossings has been requested.
Bravenet.com has advised that their request for investigation to Yahoo!Geocities regarding Benham's infringement of copyrighted material has resulted in Yahoo!Geocities requiring Benham to remove all reference to Bravenet.com.
DegreeChk, the credential reporting agency fraudulently used by Benham by falsely certifiying he (Benham) had my permission to use my personal information to obtain information on me (the information received was, in fact, unreliable and incorrect) is continuing its investigation.
Yahoo! has since reported that Richard D. Benham forged his Yahoo! e-mail address.
Chartered Institute of Linguists has been put on final notice to take action on Richard D. Benham's misuse of his moderator position under the pseudonym "Dina" and to report on any action taken against Benham.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, LESC Computer Services Division, Department of Homeland Security - ICE have been notified of Scott Horne's activities and information on his border crossings has been requested.
Documents are being prepared in both civil and criminal actions to be filed with the Superior Court of Montréal and with the Office of the District Attorney against Scott Horne.
Old News:
Scott Horne banned from TranslatorsCafe and his profile has been removed.
Richard Benham has been banned from Bravenet.com and his material deleted.
Scott Horne's profile disappears from the ProZ database (contrary to Horne's assertions Harold Vadney still maintains a presence on ProZ and has a current profile there).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
