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!

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.