Vadney’s cracking up!
He can’t make up his mind about anything. He writes me an email asking me where I am and then, without waiting for a reply, sends me another demanding that I refrain from contacting him (both emails are quoted in full in a comment to my last blog posting):
You have been asked in the past to avoid contacting me by e-mail or any
other means. [Note: This is, unsurprisingly, another lie.] This is my final demand to you to cease and to desist [from] any contact with me by any means.
But now he’s made yet another backflip, and is demanding:
why don't you just say where you are and use a real e-mail address so we [sic!] can confront you directly[?]
But Harold li’l buddy, Little Mr Inadequate, how do I tell you where I am without contacting you? And just who is this imaginary friend of yours? Why are you always “we”?
I told you: he’s cracking up.
And note the old chestnut of my “fake” or “forged” email address. Within a few hours of sending me an email at that “fake” address (the first of the two quoted in the comments to my previous posting), he repeats the accusation that it’s “fake”, not “real”. If it’s a “fake” or “forged” email address, why did he write to it? And how did I receive his pathetic epistle? It’s one thing telling lies, Haroldkins, but you at least need to be consistent. You knew all along that that email address was real, and for one simple reason: I said it was. You have not the slightest reason to suspect my honesty: you know full well that all my allegations about you have been substantially true. I did credit you with a BS degree rather than a BA, but you yourself have pointed out that that was in the information I got from DegreeChk.com. It is also a sideshow compared with your claim to have an MA, which was and remains a lie.
Vadney’s cracking up!
That’s the trouble with being a liar: it’s hard to avoid contradicting yourself, isn’t it, Little Mr Inadequate? First you accuse me of lying; then you accuse me of publishing “inaccurate” information from DegreeChk.com. Well, if I published what I got from DegreeChk.com, it can’t be a lie, can it?
The same goes for the information from the (Chartered) Institute of Linguists: Little Mr Inadequate has been trying to make some capital out of his allegation that he passed an exam for Associateship of the IoL in 1981. It is a matter of supreme irrelevance whether or not he passed this exam, because he didn’t claim to be an Associate of the IoL: he claimed to be a Member, which, even on his own account, he never was.... But again, saying that the IoL got it wrong clearly disproves his contention that I lied. I passed on the information I got from the IoL, which was incomplete, but not in any way that detracted from the truth of my assertions.
If Little Mr Inadequate, phony physician, lying linguist and jilted joke of a judge candidate, really wants to sue me for defamation, it is a serious tactical blunder to blame my sources of information for any alleged (and irrelevant) “inaccuracies”. In case you didn’t know, little man, under US law, if the public interest is involved (as it certainly is in the case of a candidate for public office, or a so-called professional who fraudulently uses false credentials), a plaintiff in a defamation case has to show “actual malice”, which is defined as belief that the matter alleged is false, or reckless indifference as to its truth or falsity. So by criticizing my sources of information (the only authoritative sources on the the credentials in question), you are acknowledging that I checked with those sources, and blowing away any chance of establishing malice.
Harold, you really are cracking up, aren’t you?
But none of this really matters, because truth is an adequate defence against defamation suits, and both you and I know that I told the truth, don’t we, little impostor?
Vadney’s cracking up!
Here we go again:
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.
Huh? I posted the exact coördinates of the résidence I was staying in for several weeks on ProZ.com, and Little Mr Inadequate, according to his own assertions on TranslatorsCafe.com, passed through Geneva during that time. Why didn’t he just take the number 12 or 16 tram to the border, walk to the résidence, and ask for me at reception?
As for the facts, Little Mr Inadequate has the facts. He knows that he claimed to be an MA graduate from SUNY at Albany, that he claimed to be a Fellow of the RSA, that he claimed to be a Member of the Institute of Linguists...and he knows that he is not an MA graduate, an FRSA or an MIL. Why does it matter to him how I found out? (In fact, it’s all in the zip-folder at <http://www.rbenham.com/Vadney/Press_Kit.zip>. Why doesn’ he just look there? Of course there is ample other evidence of his having made those lying claims, but wanting to know the strength of my evidence is nothing more than admission that I’m right.)
Knowing my current whereabouts (I have had at least half a dozen changes of accommodation since being here in the Alps: accommodation is very tight here at the best of times, but with the skiing season and the forthcoming motor show, it’s even worse) would not help Little Mr Inadequate take legal action against me anyway. He can’t even institute proceedings in Canada, let alone France. He just doesn’t have the resources, legal or intellectual, to run international litigation. A normal person would just contact a lawyer with a corresponding firm in the other country, or, to do it on the cheap, contact a law firm in the other country. But Little Mr Inadequate thinks he knows better than lawyers, and doesn’t need them. Little Mr Inadequate doesn’t even have sufficient grasp of French to contact a French lawyer....
Vadney’s cracking up!
But I digress. As I said, Little Mr Inadequate is cracking up...badly. Consider this:
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 [sic] that one with Mr Horne at her side. Lovely couple!).
If Little Mr Inadequate really had a viable (by implication, criminal) case against either Joan Ross or Scott Horne, why would he be trumpeting it around? Why wouldn’t he just be proceeding with it, or keeping the element of surprise for later? Either he’s bluffing (i.e. lying about it), or he’s just kicked yet another own goal. Maybe he’s fooling himself.
In any case, he’s cracking up!
Vadney’s cracking up!
I still can’t get over little Mr Inadequate’s use of the “royal” plural. Here are some further examples:
At least we [sic!] know where Mr Horne is or was ... [...].
We [sic!] already know that Scott Horne is collaborating with at least one defendant [...] and we'll [sic!] take care of that matter [...]. We [sic!] also know that Mr Scott Horne is conspiring with you and your attacks. [...]
But one dark question still continues to plague us [sic!] [...]
Multiple personality disorer? Now that’s what I call really cracking up!
2 comments:
Even her "majesty" the queen of England eschews the royal we; she has opted for the even more pretentious royal one. Doubtless Mr Vadney, so advised, will follow in her heav'n-blest footsteps.
Or he could take after the King James Version and capitalise all references to himself--or write his own semi-literate pronouncements in red, just as the words of the mythological Jesus are presented in some copies of the New Testament.
Much as I share your sentiments, I think we should keep the ontologically challenged out of this. The veridictionally and ethically challenged are giving me enough grief as it is.
Post a Comment