My serious comment to the umpteenth ANONYMOUS reply

The ANONYMOUS defamer wrote:
Update: And another thing, President: we strongly suspect that you have had your men hack our computer. We respectfully ask you to stop. Gentlemen don’t do some things. Such baseness is not worthy of you. You are a public person, you have publicly taken on some nobiliary titles. Therefore, accept the criticism with courage! Stop getting so upset, stop trying desperately to find out who we are and what we want! No one is obliged to take your word and to consider you noble. You is not God and criticism of you is not blasphemy. Everyone has the right to express his opinion, as long as it is done politely. And we did it. 
Pier Felice degli Uberti replies:
Do not allow yourself to make further absurd insinuations about me, such as this last one, so serious as to portray me as a criminal who violates other people’s computers: at home my Family taught me morals and I have always been used to respecting the law, so I believe the time has come to lodge another complaint with the postal police, because there are several repeated crimes (as my lawyers say).
I think you realize that you are accusing me of a very serious crime, article no. 651 Criminal Code, and it is right that the investigations take their course by rightly hitting the guilty party.
Let’s not forget the repeated crime of identity theft, article 494 of the criminal code …
I have never hacked any computer and for me such things are not even imaginable; when I have problems, I use the law and I turn to the police who have already given me a lot of satisfaction!
I see you are speaking in the plural: are you referring to your many false identities? Or in the name of a pool of time wasters fixated on nobility?
In a legal way, I have already tried to find out who is hiding behind your anonymity, I do not need to violate the Law because it is the Law itself that offers me so many possibilities: certainly, it is not patience that is lacking and I will wait for the fruits…
What problem related to the nobility haunts you so much that you don’t sleep at night? I mean that the blog with my answer was online at around 11pm on July 26, 2022 and you already communicated the new episode “A response to the president of Uberti” on the morning of July 27, 2022 at 5.24 am while I was sleeping happily.
Know that in the eyes of readers my blog has simply asphalted your poor defamatory insinuations, while your new answer once again demonstrates incompetence, bad faith, a desire not to check even the suggested sources, a preference for the “bar chat” style, inability to produce even a single archival document to support the denigrating gossip.
I see that you have made your choice: as everyone had expected (perhaps I am always the only one to hope for possible repentance…) you have chosen to remain ANONYMOUS, placing your behaviour in the category of “keyboard lions”.
And so, you missed the only opportunity offered to earn some respect, consideration or esteem on the part of readers.
At this point it is better for you to sink back into that darkness and that nothingness dear to you, where you can safely continue to hide your true identity, your real motivations, your moral and cultural deficiency (the one that leads you to use the identities of others, not feel respect even for the dead, to denigrate a person without documenting his damaging statements), perhaps hoping to alleviate a sense of failure in your life that does not allow you to show your true face in public to honestly discuss with your interlocutor.
Do not profane the word “scientific” to define your – to use the Eco words – bar chat.
After all, in a rare forced moment of objectivity, after having seen asphalted your insinuations as a potential scholar, you admit that you aren’t an expert and define your discussions as made “to laugh, to joke …”, which is certainly not the modus operandi of a scholar, even if it’s good for bar chat.
But don’t paint yourself so innocently, because you have chosen to remain anonymous precisely because you are aware that you are committing crimes and want to continue to muddy me with impunity to destroy my image as esteemed scholar.
Allow me a few comments: declaring yourself moved by the intention of “describing the entire universe of false nobles”, you indicate a list of names you would like to talk about that have nothing to do with me.
Why you don’t begin to deal with the very well-known cases of false nobles, today accepted as true nobles by indisputable “nobiliary” organisms, people who were also the subject of publications by true scholars who indicated evidence of forgery, but today appear in prestigious orders that are (they say) nobiliary and appear in “private nobiliary publications” that live on clients like them. Maybe you are one of those who live in this ephemeral/dreamlike sector, or maybe one of the forgers I unmasked to during my conferences on document falsifications …
I don’t find a concrete reason for your obsession with nobility!
Too bad that you (not me) don’t’ have the courage to reveal the mystery to us. However, since in life I am very different from you and I have no time to waste writing novels and anxiously spreading bar gossip online, I inform you that I do not want to dedicate more of my precious time to a banal ANONYMOUS slanderer, just to give life to his frustrated ego. Like all honest readers, I feel natural repulsion for behaviours like yours that have nothing noble about and would pretend to speak of nobility.
You had a chance to recover a more dignified image than the one you has carved out with your poor behaviour: coming out into the sunlight.
But you chose darkness. Too bad that “TENEBRAE NON PRAEVALEBUNT”.
Now I only address the readers that the ANONYMOUS would like to confuse:
THE ANONYMOUS in point 5) is obliged by my asphalting to recognize that he was “wrong”, in fact he writes: We were wrong when we wrote that, in the 1920s, the Ubertis family made an effort to be inscribed in the “Elenchi Ufficiali della nobiltà italiana”, but this effort failed, due to insufficient documentation. The error is due to a lack of memory on our part.
Pier Felice degli Uberti replies:
I clarify to the readers that the ANONYMOUS, showing again his incompetence confuses the book of the Civil Status of the Italian Nobility (preserved today in the Central State Archives) with the Libro d’oro della nobiltà italiana (then of the Collegio Araldico Romano and today published by the Libro d’oro srl). Before speaking you should know the texts you talk about …
The ANONYMOUS writes: This effort took place in the 1990s and failed: the degli Uberti family is listed in the second part of the collection, where there are families who aspire to the nobility, but who have not been able to provide the necessary tests.
Pier Felice degli Uberti replies:
Another false statement as the ANONYMOUS means the Libro d’oro della nobiltà italiana (published then by the Collegio Araldico Romano now by the Libro d’oro srl). All scholars know that until 1975 those families that were not included in the Elenchi Ufficiali della nobiltà italiana (1921-1933.1934-36), the Umbertini titles, and others that had been recognized by the Collegio Araldico Romano that carried out a commercial activity (during the Kingdom of Italy the Collegio Araldico Romano provided the documentation for the recognition of nobiliary titles at the Consulta Araldica – but that’s another story), were in the Second Part.
Then after 1975 other choices were made and some passed to the First Part: the Umbertini titles, the CNI and SMOM recognitions. Those who were already in the Second Part stayed there and were joined by the members of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George (French branch and Spanish branch). It is interesting to know that the passage from the First to the Second Part (round trip) had become normal (families from the Second passed to the First and also from the First to the Second).
My family is enrolled in the Second Part for admission to the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St. George (Spain) in nobiliary category, the Collegio Araldico Romano has never checked my family’s documentation and why would it have to do so? In those years I was the Secretary General of the Junta de Italia of the Asociacion de Hidalgos in Fuero de España in contrast (read war) with the CNI (from whose Circolo Giovanile I had left together with my friends Giovanelli, Biandrà di Reaglie, Cavazzoni Pederzini, de Portis degli Schiavoni etc.)
The nobiliary proof of my Family is published by the Real Asociación de Hidalgos de España – RAHE (where the admission tests of the members are always open, which means that if a false document is discovered the person would be expelled from the Association with ignominy), the same used for the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George (Spain), whose nobiliary proofs in the 80s were much more rigorous than today, and I add again that it is the same proof used for entry into the Real Cuerpo de la Nobleza of Madrid (the first nobiliary corporation of Spain).
Anyone who has read what I write in the previous article knows that for me only the book that the State published, or the Elenco Ufficiale della Nobiltà Italiana, has value, and therefore appear in the first, second or hundredth part of the Libro d’oro della nobiltà italiana (published at the time by the Collegio Araldico) for me is irrelevant, however I find convenient to appear in a carnet mondaine, which is the only publication born during the Kingdom of Italy that has maintained the same criteria and enjoys undisputed seriousness. This way my friends could see the marital status linked to my family.
The ANONYMOUS would like an answer to point 8, but would have received it only if he had had the courage to have an online discussion using his real identity as per my invitation.
In any case, I tell to the readers that if the ANONYMOUS had read correctly what I have already written, he would have found the answer to his absurd assertions, particularly on the Consortile dei Conti di Cavaglià, and if he had consulted the publications I suggested he would have seen who Antonio de Ubertis (who died in 1573) really was, while he childishly thinks to denigrate with the wrong definition of “popolano” (as those who, perhaps forgetting their own lowest social condition, set themselves up as judges of others).
The ANONYMOUS further demonstrates his ignorance, not knowing that, at the time, the word “noble” didn’t have the same meaning it had during the Kingdom of Italy (when it was codified by the Regia Consulta Araldica), but was attributed in various forms of treatment to noble persons, and I add that there are no noble families that in all documents have the nobiliary treatment with the exception of genealogical falsifications. But these things are only known to the real scholars who attend the Archives, not to those who allow themselves to speak without any preparation, moved only by the purpose to discredit.
In conclusion, even with this new answer, the ANONYMOUS further shows incompetence and serious bad faith due to an unclear denigrating interest in me and my ancestors, which he wishes to keep hidden.
Pier Felice degli Uberti