The Pink Parasite, or Would you buy this used man?

We all know about projection. Vadney lied about his credentials, which makes him a fraud; so he calls me a fraud. He accuses me of defaming him, when my accusations were true; so again the boot is on the other foot. Similarly he accuses me of criminality, stupidity, impotence, ugliness...even of being a parasite, which is a bit rich considering his own circumstances. Recently, he has accused me (and Scott Horne) of being suicidal; so I draw my own conclusion.

So why is Vadney contemplating suicide? Well, I know it’s hard, but let’s try to imagine ourselves in his position. This is my (imaginative) take on it:

Would you buy this used man?

You are 57 years old. You have been trying to make a career as a freelance translator for over 25 years now, and still you can’t make a go of it. Your business is derisory. Others, in far less time, have built up successful careers, but you can’t do it. You are coming to realize that you are too old to start again. Until a few months ago, you had a job-search website up, but after over five years, it became just too humiliating, and you had to take it down. Now your opponents, who have access to archived copies, are making fun of you over it.

Your lover, Edward, is 14 years your junior. When you met him, you were broke. When he gets sick of supporting you and kicks you out, you will be broke again. Naked came I, as the Good Book says. For a while it was rather neat that a younger, wealthier man supported you. In a way it proved you were desirable—to someone at least. But now you worry about being old and ugly. You know that dyeing your hair a lurid shade of orange can only cover for so much. You know that your days of living in comfort as his parasite are numbered.

You know, too, that, when the time comes, and your toyboy has had enough of you, you will be very hard-pressed to find a replacement. As you so aptly put it, “Middle-aged men with low self-esteem and zero self-respect are not exactly A-list company.” You really don’t like yourself. If you were happy with what you are, you wouldn’t dress up in a lab-coat with “Dr H. W. Vadney” printed on it. Not for a portrait; not even to do the gardening. It might not have made you a better person, but it fooled some people and gave you an illusory feeling of respect—not self-respect, maybe, but respect from others. Now that you have been exposed for what you are—a fraud—you must know that people laugh at you behind your back about that famous lab-coat.

In fact, there is nobody you encounter, either in your so-called professional life or in your neighbourhood, who you can’t be sure isn’t secretly laughing at you. You have been caught lying about your credentials, and it has been in the press, and it has been mentioned on professional websites. You have nowhere to hide.

Reality is closing in on you. For years—decades—people believed you were a doctor or a clinical scientist, or they politely pretended to. But now the secret is out: you have only a lousy BA, and you made a mess of your MA. You had so much trouble coping with that failure that, even nearly 30 years later, you were still pretending to have passed your MA. Until you were exposed as a liar. The whole house of cards has come crashing down around you.

You continually lose court cases; you must realize that you can be stung for costs, and then your only way out—apart from suicide—will be to go bankrupt or to go cap in hand to your young lover, who sooner or later must tire of your demands for money. You can’t accept that the fantasy persona you created for yourself is a lie; so you relentlessly harass and pursue anyone who challenges or threatens it. But somehow you know too that you have been caught out: the game is up, and you will never again be taken seriously. Your claims to be a doctor and a clinical scientist, instead of winning you respect, have made you ridiculous, despised, a laughing-stock. It is too late to recover your self-esteem and relaunch yourself: you are too old and you have no independent means. You can’t even earn a living.

You know too that some of the things you have been exposed for are serious crimes: fraud, perjury.... Even your current obsessive hate-blogging could get you prosecuted for harassment, but you just can’t stop. You could land in prison. With your fake upper-class mannerisms, your puffery and your holier-than-thou attitude, you will be despised and detested, both by the other criminals and by the prison guards. Your two absurd and pathetic attempts to become a judge will not sit well in your new environment either. Your life in prison will be hell.

You? A judge? Some hope! With 17 votes, it looks like not even all your family voted for you. You should be grateful: a judge in prison would have an even worse time of it than you’ve booked yourself in for.

You skulk around the house in your dressing gown, behind closed shutters and boarded-up windows, peering out at the world, at the people who, unlike you, have a life, wondering whether they are talking or thinking about you. Pathetic. You Google your own name obsessively to find out what people think of you. You have next to no work; you are afraid to show your face for fear of ridicule, or just for fear that people will realize you have nothing better to do than wander around. Your future as a homeless and despised old jailbird (if you survive to be let out), unattractive, unloved, unwanted, living on the street, is too horrible to contemplate. How sad.

No wonder you want to kill yourself.

But don’t worry: he won’t do it. He hasn’t got the guts.

PS: If anyone is wondering what happened to the entry on the distinction between onanism and masturbation, two topics dear to Mr Vadney’s heart (see his blog entries from December 2007 for multiple references thereto), stop worrying! I posted it to this blog by mistake: it was intended for the companion blog, Biblical quotations for the Vadney, and that’s where you’ll find it now. Although that blog is primarily intended for his spiritual guidance, that particular entry is more for his general education, which is sadly lacking. However, I included it there because it rests on a Biblical quotation which is commonly misunderstood.

PPS: I’m still in Annemasse. My precise geographical coördinates, to two decimal places, are on my ProZ.com profile. I can’t be bothered copying them here.

An apology? That’s a start....

I note that Mr Vadney has made an apology to his readers (both of us) for his recent somewhat unseemly outbursts. At least that is a step in the right direction. However, now that Mr Vadney has calmed down a little, I would ask him to consider, calmly, the following.

• Mr Vadney makes the following statement:
  

  I am a very kind and considerate person but when faced with unashamed stupidity and recalcitrant arrogance [I only said he’d calmed down a little!] even when the malfeasors are confronted with proof of error or falsity it becomes annoying and frustrating.

  
  I assume I am supposed to be one of those unashamedly stupid and recalcitrantly arrogant “malfeasors”.
  
  
• Let’s have a look at Mr Vadney’s “proof”. As far as I can see, this “proof” consists of his unsupported assertion of the existence of several documents:
  
  
  
  1. A certificate from the IoL, dating from 1981, to the effect that Mr Vadney was elected a Member, or Associate Member, of the IoL;
     
     
  2. A certificate from the RSA, dating from 1979, to the effect that Mr Vadney was elected a Fellow of the RSA;
     
     
  3. A letter from the Department of the Army confirming Mr Vadney’s medals.
     
  
  
• Let’s assume, for the moment, that all these documents exist and are genuine. Now let’s consider their relevance:
  
  
  
  1. The certificate from the IoL may or may not confirm that Mr Vadney was entitled to use the abbreviation “MIL” in 1981 and into 1982. If it mentions the word “Associate”, however, as it does in the account Mr Vadney gave of it in the IoL forum, it only entitled him to the designation “AIL”. In either case, of his own admission, Mr Vadney allowed his (full or associate) membership to lapse, and was not entitled to either designation in 2007, when he claimed to be a Member on his campaign website, as well as his TranslatorsCafe.com and ProZ.com profiles. So I was right in my assertion that he had falsely claimed to be a Member of the IoL.
     
     
  2. Again, assuming Mr Vadney was elected a Fellow of the RSA in 1979, by his own admission, he did not maintain his membership, and so was not entitled to call himself a Fellow or use the designation FRSA. However, he did so on his campaign websites and on his ProZ.com and TranslatorsCafe.com profiles until August 2007, when I published my exposé. Again, I was right to do so.
     
     
  3. As for Mr Vadney’s Army decoration, he seems to be under a bit of a delusion. I did not mention this medal on the NIL forum in August 2007. The forum was closed down, thanks to Mr Vadney’s intervention, just as Scott Waldman’s article was about to be published. It was in this article that I first learned of the issue about the medal. Mr Waldman did not get the information from me; he claimed in the article to have a letter from the relevant authority to the effect that Mr Vadney’s medal had been revoked. I find it extraordinary to suppose that he would have fabricated this. If Mr Vadney has a beef with anyone, I would say it is with the record-keeping authority for giving Mr Waldman the false information, assuming that’s what happened. I certainly had no rôle in it.
     
  
  
• Mr Vadney has made allegations about the manner in which I obtained records of his degree status. I do not intend to enter into any discussion of that here. It is a red herring. The fact remains that Mr Vadney claimed to have an MA from SUNY at Albany, and he did not and does not. The CVs and other documents in which he made this claim have been archived by neutral third parties and can be produced in court. So too, his SUNY records can be obtained on subpoena. The question of how I came to know about Mr Vadney’s degree status is not relevant to the issue of defamation. Either he got his MA or he didn’t.
  
  
• Another red herring is the claim that my information about Mr Vadney’s degrees was “inaccurate”. The “inaccuracy” does not relate to the absence of an MA degree; it relates to the title of Mr Vadney’s bachelor’s degree: it was listed as BS rather than BA. So what? A BA degree is no more an MA than is a BS.
  

In view of all this, Mr Vadney must realize that he cannot possibly win a defamation suit against me. On the other hand, Mr Vadney has made numerous defamatory statements about me, attacking my honesty and my mental health, accusing me of lies, fraud and defamation, and questioning my academic credentials. None of these allegations is accompanied by any evidence, and none has any substance. So Mr Vadney might be well advised to publish a comprehensive apology and retraction, in order to reduce the head of damages against him should I decide to sue him for defamation.

He might also consider his position in relation to the defendants in his ill-considered court action. He has a lot more to apologize to them for than to me.

Sorry, but it's interesting ... Expatriate Horne? Huh???

The tininess of the Vadney’s mind has just beeen illustrated yet again:

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.

So let’s get this straight: Mr Horne may (or may not) be an American expatriate...and that’s “extraordinary”? There are over two hundred nationalities, and the possibility that some person may happen to have one of them is news? This is like the Vadney’s story that I had “dishonestly” given an Indonesian address when I was an Australian citizen.... I was actually living in Indonesia at the time, and made no representations about my citizenship. (I assume the Vadney was talking about my ProZ.com profile: there is no provision to include one’s citizenship or nationality there.)

We'll [sic!] 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 [sic!] have this curious bit of intelligence.

Did I hear the word “intelligence”? The Vadney and his imaginary friend(s) have acquired some intelligence? That would be very heartening! Vadney and friend(s), however, don’t seem to be doing putting this new-found intelligence to much use if they think government agencies are going to give them private details of someone else’s citizenship. Doesn’t the fact that they first tried to interest these agencies in Mr Horne several (with a promise to keep the eagerly-awaiting world informed of their response) months ago tell them anything?

Usually, expatriates find somewhere culturally stimulating like Paris or the like or somewhere exotic like Bali. The only real expatriates we [sic!] usually hear of going to Canada from the USA are draft-dodgers or criminals who are attempting to escape apprehension.

People have all sorts of reasons for their choice of residence. It is not for lowlife fraudulent would-be translators like the Vadney to speculate about the motives of real people. But draft-dodgers? Is the Vadney aware that the US abolished the draft in 1973? How old does he think Mr Horne was then?

Would that perhaps explain Mr Horne's aliases: Patrick S. Horne a.k.a. P. Scott Horne a.k.a. Scott Horne?

Aliases? Since when does choosing one or other of one’s given names as principal given name constitute using an alias? How would it even help to disguise one’s identity?

I happen to have some information from “unofficial sources” myself: After being banned from the IoL fora, a certain Harold W. Vadney III re-enrolled under the “alias” of “William”, and when William got banned, he re-enrolled under the “alias” of “HWV”. This despite having been told not to post any further by the moderator Dina even before his first banning.

Now on the subject of criminality: I will spare you the vadney’s meanderings on the subjuct, and merely remark that the Vadney still has yet to produce one skerrick of evidence of criminality on my part, on Mr Horne’s part or on the part of any of the other targets of his venom. Nor has he even denied the obvious: that he himself is up to his neck in fraud, harassment and perjury.

Would you buy a used car from this man?

The mind vomits. The Vadney doesn’t just beggar belief: he positively buggers it. First of all, we get this headline: “Back on Track ... Requiem for Benham and Horne”, which might be construed as a death threat, but in the post beneath it Vadney makes the following solemn pronouncement:

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.

This resolve lasts all of 2 hours 36 minutes, until, under the headline “Credentials Inc. and DegreeChk”, we get a lot of pap about my alleged “fraud” and “breach of [Credentials Inc.’s] conditions of service” Has anything “extraordinary” developed in those two-and-a-half hours? Unless the Vadney did some thinking, which really would be extraordinary, nothing new has happened at all. This latest post contains no new (mis)information.

The Vadney does, however, issue a challenge of sorts:

[...] 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?

Apparently, it has not sunk in to the Vadney that, as I said last time he raised this issue, it is none of his business how I got the information. If he is right in his belief that I have breached some agreement with Credentials Inc., then that is a civil matter between them and me. If he thinks that information on his degrees should not have been released to me, then he should take it up with Credentials Inc., or SUNY, on whose behalf they were acting.

If on the other hand, the Vadney thinks I have done something criminal, let him take it up with the police. But he’d better make sure he brings along a spare copy of The Vadney Act, because they probably haven’t heard of it.

If the Vadney wants his challenges to be taken seriously, he would do well to answer the simple yes/no questions I put to him some time ago in my post “Open challenge to the Vadney”. Unlike his inane questions, there is actually some point to his answering mine. It will provide good practice for the forthcoming defamation case. No doubt the Vadney will face these or very similar questions under cross-examination. If he applies his mind (for want of a better word) to providing clear answers to these questions, taking into account that the true answers are objectively provable to the criminal degree of proof and that perjury can land him in the slammer, he might have second thoughts (for want of a better word) about his current self-destructive course.

The main thing to bear in mind here is that the Vadney’s pontifications and expatiations on how I got the information are a diversion: he knows he lied for years about his qualifications, claiming an MA he never had. He knows I know it too and can prove it. So he is trying to distract attention with irrelevant and unfounded allegations.

And as for his parting shot:

And then you wonder why Benham is being investigated from so many quarters?!?!

it’s beneath contempt. There is no evidence I am being seriously investigated by anyone serious. If you go to anyone in authority with an obvious fabrication against someone, of course they’ll say “We’ll look into it”, but that does not mean you have achieved anything or even been taken seriously. It’s just a stock response to shut you up. Noöne takes Vadneyesque allegations seriously. Very few take the Vadney seriously.

Losing it (again)....

There are various degrees of losing it. The Vadney is never really in close contact with reality, but he’s just flipped completely again.

Werner Patels (again)

“There is no spat or dispute with Mr Patels”, he tells us (sounds cozy). Well Mr Patels has just (quite understandably) threatened to bring charges of criminal libel against him.... [Note: A comment on my blog from Mr Patels to that effect arrived while I was drafting this. I wrote the preceding sentence on the basis of information on Mr Patels’s own blog.] Apparently this is such an everyday occurrence for the Vadney that it doesn’t even count as a dispute.

The IoL (again)

Now here’s a beauty:

Because if Mr Benham truely [sic] received any true [sic!] 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.

Now compare that with the following, posted on the IoL “Membership” forum by the very Vadney, before he got kicked off for his persistent irrelevant abusive attacks on various people, including some who weren’t even on that forum (his neighbours, again):

I sat the then IoL examinations in London in about 1981 and received the certificate 'Associate of the IoL' etc.

So what happened here? Did the Vadney receive two certificates? Did he get elected Associate and Member at the same time? If he really was a Member, why has it taken until now, over four months after my exposé, to mention this certificate? In any case, the Vadney has not (yet) retracted his admission that he stopped paying his dues over a quarter of a century ago, thus renouncing his claim to any form of affiliation.

Mrs Catherine Johnstone (who??)

And then we have the typical Vadney red herring:

A person accosted by Benham and Horne as having "falsified her credentials" makes the very apropos [sic] 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.

I suppose I’ll have to repost that exposé somewhere. (I’ll dig it up and post it as a comment.) In it, I make quite clear that we were unable to check most of this woman’s claims precisely because she promoted herself under her married name. I made it quite clear that, implausible as her other claims were, the démenti was only concerned with her claim to have a PhD from Queen Mary College (which is actually a secondary school, but as she mentioned the University of London explicitly, I charitably assumed she meant Queen Mary, University of London). It is easy to track down successful PhD dissertations, and I was able to establish that there was no successful PhD thesis by anyone with this woman’s first name for many years either side of her alleged PhD graduation year, none ever on anything remotely resembling her alleged topic, none in her alleged field of study for several years either side of her alleged PhD year,.... Despite having been advised of the forum thread some months ago, she has made no attempt to refute the claims, or even deny them. This is actually the most intelligent course of action, assuming she is a fraud, but is completely inexplicable otherwise.

General bluster (again)

Last let me address that well-known old stand-by of those who have long since lost an argument: “You’re not qualified to say that!” He takes up this tired old theme several times; here’s just one example:

While Mr Benham, Mr Horne and Mr Patels 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 [sic] and Horne or Patels to the examination panel?

Well, Haroldkins, you don’t need to be a meteorologist to know when you’re being rained on, and you don’t need a PhD in biochemistry to know that shit stinks. And you’re full of shit, and you stink to high heaven of it!

More lies, Haroldkins? Will you ever give up?

The Vadney has just added another post about Clare Lorimer’s departure from the IoL. It is news to me, but then I had next to no contact with her, other than to enquire about Vadney’s claimed membership of the IoL—a claim which, even on Vadney’ own self-serving account, was never anything other than a barefaced lie. Maybe she got another job; maybe she decided to devote herself to motherhood and domestic bliss; maybe, just maybe, she got sacked at the Vadney’s instance for correctly telling me that Vadney wasn’t an MIL.... Yeah, and maybe pigs will fly.

Then we have this whopper of a porky:

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.

[Comic colour effects in original omitted.]

First of all, let me say that I have never claimed to be member of the Chartered Institute of Linguists. As I have previously mentioned, on this very blog, I have some fundamental differences with them. On a couple of occasions, I have downloaded the membership application form, with a view to trying to reform the system from within, but I have never proceeded with an application.

Secondly, how credible is the claim that the IoL “has asked for information to assist in investigating” Mr Horne and me? Why would they even want to investigate either of us? I am remined of the man who wrote to his local council with some suggestions, and received the reply that, if the council wanted his opinion, they would ask for it. So he told his friends he had been appointed an “honorary consultant”. If there is any truth at all in Vadney’s assertion (and he has some familiarity with the tactical ruse of interspersing his torrent of lies with the occasional half-truth as a diversion), then it can only be along the lines that he sent them a typical Vadney farrago of lies, and they responded (maybe not in quite these words) “If you have any evidence for your assertions, please provide it; otherwise bugger off!”

By the way, the Vadney earlier claimed I was being “investigated” by DegreeChk.com. This is, to put it politely, another Vadney fantasy. If DegreeChk.com were to investigate me for, as alleged by Vadney, falsely claiming to have his permission to use his details, the very first thing they would have done would be to contact me and ask me whether I had any evidence of this permission. Of course they didn’t investigate me. The Vadney’s accusations, once again, are as contemptible as the Vadney himself. Serious businesses don’t have time for crackpots.