Anyone for Green Herring?

There are red herrings...

Well, for once the Vadney has said something I would agree with: “Watch for Red Herrings with Internet Scoundrels”. Well, the “scoundrels” sounds a bit quaintly anachronistic, but then the Vadney appears to have no ambitions to be taken seriously.

Examples of red herrings to watch for would be:

(1) After being exposed as not having the credentials one has claimed, turning around and attacking the exposers, but never addressing the issue of the truth or falsity of one’s own claims.

(2) Accusing one’s exposers of defamation, and persisting with this accusation for weeks on end, without ever saying what it is that they have said that is alleged to be defamatory, or presenting one’s arguments as to why it supposedly isn’t true.

(3) Making all sorts of innuendos about alleged sexual orientations of and relations between one’s opponents.

(4) Persistently accusing one’s opponents of criminality, without ever giving the details or evidence.

(5) Rather than addressing the issue of the (undeniable) truth of the revelations against oneself, blustering about the means by which the information was obtained.

(6) Dismissing information as “inaccurate” on the basis of trivial details (such as reference to a BS degree instead of a BA), while never addressing the glaring issue (e.g. that one has claimed a non-existent MA degree). “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”—Matthew 7:3.

(7) Trying to link a very simple issue—the fact that one has been caught falsely claiming credentials—with an unrelated extravagant and frivolous lawsuit one has taken, and accusing one’s exposers of being in some sort of (unefined) “conspiracy” with the defendants in that suit.

(8) Publishing wild speculations about one’s exposers’ nationality, whereabouts, sources of wealth, etc., and drawing or suggesting even wilder conclusions of criminality, rather than, again, addressing the issue of the truth or falsity of the original statements that started the dispute.

Of course the Vadney has done all this and more. He has treated us to countless new posts, greater or lesser edits to existing posts, and attempts to comment on my blog, since 12 December 2007, without once mentioning the substance of the so-called defamation.

...and there are green herrings!

But I think the term “red herring” is not the most accurate for Vadney’s efforts. What we are dealing with here are rather “green herrings”: they are born of envy.

How else does one explain the following meandering drivel?

[...] 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.

I quote my rates in euros, because I target the European market, but a quick conversion on XE.com shows that my advertised rates are about double the Vadney’s advertised rates. Not only that, until I came here to study, I was working at full capacity, whereas the Vadney only manages to get a trickle of work, despite his bogus qualifications and claimed quarter-century of experience. A few months ago, the Vadney announced on TranslatorsCafe.com that he was planning a European tour at the end of 2007. Apparently it never eventuated (for lack of money? or was it just another green herring to start with?), while here I am in Europe, living in a hotel.... Oh, and of course, I actually do have a recognized translation diploma or two, earned the hard way (by passing exams, not just putting some fabrication in my CV...).

And by the way, the vast majority of translators get their assignments and deliver their work by email; so it makes no difference where they are located, as long as there is Internet connectivity. And it happens that the cost of living is very low in Indonesia, and there is no income tax. So is it any wonder that I, working full-time at about double the Vadney’s rates, can afford to go on a study tour of Europe when he can’t?

Mr Vadney, if you want to be able to afford that European vacation, take some advice from me. Improve your skills, starting with your English spelling and grammar and moving on to elementary German; stop wasting your time and (eventually) money on frivolous lawsuits you can’t win; stop spending your time defaming your betters (yes! the word is carefully chosen) and start trying to build a career the slow but steady way. You’ve still got 7 or 8 years before standard retirement age, and look at me: I have built a successful career in about 4 years.

Finally, a pink herring

When the Vadney first started his grubby little blog, he used the pseudonym “BG”...while at the same time berating me for my alleged use of a pseudonym. Maybe like you, I wondered what the letters stood for. Then I noticed the email address from which originated the Vadney’s infantile attempts to comment on my blog: beaugars@.... Beau gars?? “Handsome young man”?? (And that’s a charitable translation....)

Judge for yourself.

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.

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.

Vadney’s cracking up!

It must be uncomfortable sitting at your computer typing...with one hand on your dick and your pants full of shit (not to mention your brain). Maybe that’s why the Vadney, Little Mr Inadequate, is cracking up.

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!

Little Mr Inadequate is shitting his pants now...!

 Background

I have been loath to publish too many entries, because, unless I just repeat myself, they detract attention away from the objective facts and arguments. So here’s a recapitulation of the objective facts.

(1) From at least as early as 2000, a charlatan wannabe translator, Harold William Vadney III, advertised himself on the Internet as a Master of Arts of SUNY at Albany, a Member of the Insitute of Linguists and a Fellow of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce.

(2) Harold William Vadney III was none of those things.

(3) In August 2007, I published, on the now defunct Network of Independent Linguists’ discussion forum, an exposé revealing the facts listed at (1) and (2) above.

(4) As the charlatan Vadney was also using these lies in his campaign for election as Town Justice in the hamlet of New Baltimore, New York, the Albany Times Union took an interest in the case, and published a story by one Scott Waldman, raising the matters referred to at (1) and (2) above, and some others.

(5) Since that time, the charlatan Harold William Vadney III has been waging a hate campaign of lies, distortions and irrelevant half-truths against me and anyone else he considers to have been involved in the exposure of his charlatanism.

There is ample evidence for (1) all over the web. Although Vadney changed his various CVs and profiles shortly after being exposed, there is nothing he can do about archived or cached copies of his puff pages. The evidence for (2) came from the organizations concerned; copies of the emails I received from them are in the zip-folder at <http://www.rbenham.com/Vadney/Press_Kit.zip>, along with a small selection of the Vadney’s puff pages.

Vadney has since disputed the contents of the emails from DegreeChk.com (agents for SUNY) and the IoL. The arguments he raises are typical of his dishonesty and desperation. He claims the IoL forgot about an exam he did way back in 1981. On the IoL’s own forum, he claims that he “sat the then IoL examinations in London in about 1981 and received the certificate 'Associate of the IoL' etc.” So much voluntary self-incrimination: “Associate” is a lower grade of affiliation than “Member”, and the Vadney consistently claimed the latter, either explicitly or by using the abbreviation MIL (Member of the Institute of Linguists) rather than AIL (Associate of the Institute of Linguists), which, by his own account, he just may have been entitled to for a period of one year at most. Similarly, he complains that DegreeChk.com gave me “inaccurate” information, but the only inaccuracy was that it said he had a Bachelor of Science degree rather than Bachelor of Arts—of no relevance to the undeniable fact that he lied by claiming a Master of Arts degree.

So far, the Vadney has not even thought up a plausible excuse for claiming to be a Fellow of the RSA.

The Vadney’s latest pseudo-legal posturings

In his latest blog entry, the Vadney tells us:

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.

Let’s look at this rant objectively.

(1), (2) In his typical puffed-up style, the Vadney makes the same point twice. With typical intellectual dishonesty, he begs the question by referring to the “defamed” and “defamer” rather than “plaintiff” and “defendant” in (1). (In this case, who is really the “defamed” and who the “defamer”? ) Why does the Vadney even raise this question of burden of proof? Because he is shitting his pants, that’s why! Why would you want to make an issue of the burden of proof if you were in the right?! Translation of (1) and (2): “I, the Vadney, alias Little Mr Inadequate, know that I’m dead wrong, but I’m hoping as a last resort that you won’t be able to prove it!’ Sorry, Haroldkins, there’s enough evidence to nail you on the criminal standard of proof, let alone the civil!

(3) Just random ravings. The Vadney hopes to frighten me with the prospect of some kind of international proceedings. No such luck. Besides, he glosses over the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings.

(4) So what?

(5) Again, this only requires translation from Vadneyese to show that it’s another desperate bluff: “I, Little Mr Inadequate, alias the Vadnikins, know I haven’t got a leg to stand on, but I can always threaten you with the trouble and expense of defending one of my famous vexatious and frivolous lawsuits.”

Vadney, Master Spy?

In earlier entries, Little Mr Inadequate regales us with stories like:

'Benham Spotters' have placed him in various locales but we need to know exactly where he is so we can keep the authorities informed ...

or

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.

Now why exactly would these “authorities” be interested in hearing from Little Mr Inadequate about my whereabouts? Does it not occur to Mr Inadequate that I show my (genuine) passport on request from the “authorities” when I travel, and that they have a much better idea of where I am than he does? (Actually, I did post my exact coördinates on ProZ.com; I have since moved a few hundred metres because accommodation is pretty tight around here at this time of year.)

But especially noteworthy is the implication that Little Mr Inadequate is the head of a network of spies...and wrongdoers like me have nowhere to hide. This sounds awfully like a threat to me, but I am not exactly quaking in my boots.

Puffery

One thing that has emerged remarkably consistently from Little Mr Inadequate’s rantings is that whatever he accuses others of applies to himself, not to them. So he has accused me of lying, fraud, defamation, criminality and even impotence. (I will forbear all reference to his allusions to homosexuality.) What does this say about him?

Well, one other term he likes to bandy about is “puffery”. This makes me think of some animals, which use inflatable sacs to make themselves look bigger to potential rivals or predators. This is exactly what Little Mr Inadequate does too. Note his consistent use of “we” and his habit of referring to himself in the third person. And don’t forget the network of spies he commands...in his own pathetic little imagination.

Footnote: One of Little Mr Inadequate’s recent outrages has been to refer to me as an “alleged "translator"” This is a clear slight to my professional competence. In the unlikely event that any real translator who reads this has any illusions about the Vadney’s competence, I suggest you go to ProZ.com and/or TranslatorsCafe.com and look at his terminology questions. Don’t bother looking for his answers: he is far to self-centred to think of helping anybody else—mercifully so, as it happens. One of his major triumphs was to ask (on ProZ.com’s KudoZ) about the meaning of the French preposition à (a question which I answered!). Admittedly, it was in a chemical/medical context, but it could have been answered by anyone with a high-school knowledge of chemistry, let alone the “clinical scientist” the Vadney claims to be. A total fraud.