Harold W. Vadney III is a wannabe translator who lies about his credentials. In August 2007, I exposed him on the now-defunct Network of Independent Linguists’ Discussion Forum. He has now set up a blog devoted to telling lies about me and others. This is my reply. To comment or for further information write to Richard_Benham_AU-StopVadneysLies[at]yahoo.com.

Sunday, 16 March 2008

Vadney the valiant victim, courageous challenger, real champion putting his life on the line for his country!

In recent postings to his puke pages, the Vadney has indeed referred to himself with characteristic modesty as: “valiant victim”, “courageous challenger” and “real champion”. But most amusingly of all, he calls himsef “someone who's put his life on the line for his country”. In Göppingen!? In the 1970s!?

There were no organized Nazi elements left over from World War II, the Soviets didn’t invade and were never likely to, being at least as scared of the West as the West was of them. So what was this big threat to the Vadney’s life? Hippies armed with flowers!

And of course the usual lies. Scott Horne and I published the story that Vadney’s medal was revoked and Scott Waldman picked it up and uncritically republished it. This is not a mistake on the Vadney’s part, this is another lie. The Vadney is an avid reader of my blogs—like all true exhibitionists, he finds even adverse attention exciting—and he has seen my previous refutation of this fabrication. For those who are unaware of the background to this, the original forum thread in which the Vadney was exposed is still available. And then there are the usual lies about such mundane matters as my age, the length of time I spent out of the workforce.... None of these claims, even if true or believed, would add any credibility to the Vadney or his pathetic attempts to impress people, but then why tell the truth when you can just as easily tell a lie?

Note that the Vadney has neither denied nor explained the rather abrupt termination of his military career. Typically, he tries to cover it up with another lie: by constantly referring to his “five years” of service, when he spent exactly (to the day) four years and one month in the army. It rather looks as though he was demoted and bundled out, and he has done nothing to deny it. This from a “real champion” of self-aggrandizement (or puffery, as he calls it). What can we conclude? The obvious!


Scott Horne said...

Enlisting for a post in Germany when the army is getting its ass kicked in Vietnam is not valiant or courageous; it's spineless and craven. Typical of a chicken-hawk and a draft-dodger.

I'm surprised that Mr Vadney hasn't claimed six years' service by counting all of 1972 (enlisted on December 29) and all of 1977 (was discharged on January 28), despite having served for only a few days in each of those years.

I had never communicated with Mr Waldman at all before seeing his brilliant exposé in the newspaper, so I could hardly have tipped him off to Mr Vadney's military record. For that matter, I didn't know anything about Mr Vadney's military record at the time. Yet Mr Vadney continues to defame you and me, Richard, by asserting that it was we who gave Mr Waldman his information. The whole thing is nothing but a cheap diversion from the fact that Mr Vadney repeatedly told whopping lies about his credentials for many, many years (and still does).

Richard D. Benham said...

Hello. I think it is important to note, too, that ex-Staff Sergeant Vadney is defaming Mr Waldman by claiming that he didn’t do his research. I was in contact with him (he got in touch with me initially) before the article, and I gave him all the material he had. However, I did not say anything about ex-Staff Sergeant Vadney’s military record because I knew nothing about it.

The Times Union article did not appear for some weeks, and during that time Mr Waldman obviously approached ex-Staff Sergeant Vadney (see the latter’s blog entries where relates what he told Mr Waldman), as well as the IoL, the RSA, SUNY and...the US military.

The first I knew that there was an issue with ex-Staff Sergeant Vadney’s record was when I read it in the Times Union online.

Clearly there is more to this than meets the eye. Ex-Staff Sergeant Vadney could resolve the issue by publishing all his correspondence with the Army, and allowing the release of the material that is not normally available to the public, but clearly he considers it not in his interests to do so. I simply refuse to believe that a professional journalist like Mr Waldman would have simply made that story up. He must have got it from the authorities. Something, or someone, must have got to the US Army to make them change their story.

Scott Horne said...

Once again, Richard, I'm by no means sure that Mr Vadney (E4) deserves the appellation "ex–Staff Sergeant" (did my pedantic en dash show up correctly?). The rank E6, which Mr Vadney (E4) seems to have held for one brief shining moment (the high point in his entire career?), appears to be at the enlisted level. If ex–Clerk Typist Vadney ever had a title beyond the rather too grandiose "Specialist", I should like to see proof of that.

Of course a professional journalist such as Mr Waldman would not simply make up a story about the revocation of ex–Clerk Typist Vadney's "commendation" medal. Ex–Clerk Typist Vadney's gloating about purported "confirmation" of that medal strongly suggests that something is rotten in the state of Denmark—rather, in the town of New Baltimore. I am reminded of ex–Clerk Typist Vadney's gloating about a supposedly clean record at ProZ after years of efforts (successful, I'm afraid) to browbeat ProZ into suppressing adverse reports about his sleazy business practices. He schemed to get his record whitewashed, then brandished it about as supposed proof of his (ahem) integrity. I can't help thinking of a Chinese saying: 又想当婊子,又想立牌坊 'wish to lead the life of a whore while also erecting a monument to one's own chastity'.

Richard D. Benham said...

Scott, E6 is the pay-scale of a Staff Sergeant; all NCOs are included in the “enlisted” ranks (E1-E9). The next higher group the Warrant Officer range (W1-W5), and then come the Commissioned Officer (O1-O10; plus the rank “General of the Army”, reserved for wartime). See www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/enlisted.html for the enlisted ranks and www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/officers.html for the various officer grades.

I don’t know how things are done in the US, but where I come from, anyone in the military who does what would be classed as a “professional” job in civilian life is a commissioned officer. Even at E6, the Vadney was nowhere near that status; there were another eight classifications between his and that of the lowest commissioned officer (E7-E9, W1-W5). A veritable shitkicker.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to any earthworms who may be reading this (why not?—they must be at least as literate as the Vadney) for calling the Vadney a “worm”. At least worms improve the soil. The trouble is, there is one regular reader of my blogs who is a bit sensitive about certain words, and so I thought it best to spare her my more accurate description of the Vadney.

Given how the Pink Parasite Vadney really supports himself, that “whore” comment is rather more appropriate than meets the eye.

Scott Horne said...

Hello again, Richard.

The "specialists" (E4–E6) are at the same pay scale with the bottom-end non-commissioned officers, but they are not NCOs themselves. Here is some information:


The papers that I received clearly listed Mr Vadney (E4) as having the rank "Specialist Four / E-4"; thus he was not a non-commissioned officer, and certainly not a commissioned one. So I say that calling him "ex–Staff Sergeant" is being rather too generous. He was a grunt, a shit-kicker.

One wonders what happened during that fateful year 1976. Ex–Clerk Typist Vadney was reportedly given the rank E6 for a few months (although the handwritten entry on his record is suspicious next to a typewritten entry made on the very same day—did the typewriter break?), then apparently was reduced to E4 before being discharged in fairly short order. What exactly happened? Why did the vaunted military career of the Valiant Victim, Courageous Challenger, and Real Champion Putting His Life on the Line for His Country come to an abrupt, ignominious end? Was he treated unfairly? or did he do something that wasn't on the up-and-up?

One suspects that he could have had a modest but financially viable military career if he had played his cards right. He probably would have done better than in the civilian realm. So what happened?

Richard D. Benham said...

That link is all about the E4 level. There does not appear to be a comparable distinction at the E6 level. I leave aside the question of how one can be a “Specialist” Clerk Typist while being unable to spell.

The opinion seems to be among answerers to that question that a corporal is an NCO, which is how I always understood it. However, according to the site I linked to earlier, “An Army sergeant, an Air Force staff sergeant, and a Marine corporal are considered NCO ranks. The Navy NCO equivalent, petty officer, is achieved at the rank of petty officer third class. ” This is a US military site, and so I assume it is authoritative.

In either case, there is no doubt that E4 is not an NCO rank and that E6 is. These fine distinctions are only of interest to the shitkickers themselves.

However, I don’t think we should deprive Mr Vadney of the glory, however fleeting, of making it almost two-thirds of the way up the shitkicker hierarchy. After all, it was the highlight of his career.

Scott Horne said...

I can't answer the question about the military grades, but I can say that even Mr Vadney's level of spelling skill would have made him something of an asset (emphasis on the first syllable). The US army is a cesspool of illiteracy. Its own high-ranking officers constantly bemoan the difficulty of recruiting people who can read at even the Grade 7 level.

About Me

I am a professional translator in the combinations French>English and German>English. I hold qualifications from the University of Adelaide (BA, DipCompSc), the Australian National University (LittB), the University of Geneva (Certificat de spécialisation en linguistique), and the the UK-based Institute of Linguists (Diploma in Translation for both my language combinations). I am an implacable opponent of bullshit in all its forms.