Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Pathetic Pedantic Twit) wrote:
Briarroot wrote in message ...
Mark Houlsby wrote: ...
No doubt you consider his having insulted every Chinese person in the
world equally hilarious...

I doubt if *any* Chinese person actually felt insulted. It's you pathetic
nanny types who are fussing and fuming as if your skirts are on fire.

Here's the context of the dialogue above: Both Mark Houlsby and Briarroot
were referring to this comment in the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited'
(2 June 2003) by Tim Hanke, who wrote: "Bugger the Chinese..."

Aren't you getting a little tired of riding this hobby-horse?
These threads would have died out long ago except for your continuing
need to dredge up some shred to prop up of your flyblown ego.
What you are doing is nothing more than public masturbation.

Unlike Briarroot, evidently, I have a busy schedule full of better things to
do than to reply *immediately* to every post here, even including some posts
that are ad hominem attacks against me. And I have not responded in some time
while Briarroot has pursued his ad hominem sniping at me in various threads.

Briarroot has revelled in expressing his racism here, and he seems to enjoy
every aspect of his racism (there's a record of his exclaiming "LOL" and the
like about racist "humor") except one: Briarroot seems to resent being held
responsible for his racism and being identified publicly as a racist.

In my view, like everyone else, Briarroot continues to be fully responsible
for whatever he has written here unless and until he writes a retraction or
makes an apology for it, specifically. In addition, I have referred *only*
to Briarroot's posts that were written under my observation in 2003; so far,
I have *not* attempted to refer to any of Briarroot's older posts.

Apparently, Briarroot would like to invoke a rhetorical statute of limitations
perhaps to the effect of: "You are not allowed to write today that my post of
last week was racist because I wrote it last week! Now it's too late; I claim
perpetual immunity from any further criticism."

Now, as for comparing my "ego" with Briarroot's:

On one hand, I respect my readers enough to tell them, whenever practicable,
"You don't just have to take my word for what I write: here are my sources
and here are references for further reading." I tend to cite my sources, to
quote authorities, and to list more scholarly references for further study.
In short, I aim to support my views with evidence and reasoned arguments.

On the other hand, Briarroot tends to run around here exclaiming, "Observe
the obvious!" (or sometimes simply, "Bull****"), ergo, his latest conclusion.
In effect, Briarroot keeps telling us something like: "You must believe that
I am right because I am Briarroot! No other evidence is required."

Furthermore, I appreciate meaningful factual corrections to my posts, and I
have thanked the readers who have made them. For example, I have thanked
George Mirijanian for correcting my post on Sanskrit etymology and Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski for correcting my post on Ramsey theory. Also, I have thanked
some readers for mentioning new facts that were relevant to my posts. For
example, I have thanked Bob Bennett for revealing facts about Zsuzsa Polgar's
personal life and Jerome Bibuld for facts about the world of tournament bridge.

On the other hand, as far as I know (not having read every one of his posts),
Briarroot seems too insecure to admit that he could ever be wrong, let alone
to thank anyone for correcting his errors or disproving his assertions here.

Needless to say, when, at his specific *demand*, I proved Briarroot wrong
about the contemporary existence of the racist expression, "Ching Chong
Chinaman" in the United States, Briarroot did *not* thank me. Instead,
he became enraged and responded by writing (9 May 2003) in the thread,
"Zhang Zhong revisited": "Blow it out your ass, Nick!"

Hence, Briarroot "doubts" that "*any* (his emphasis) Chinese person" could
"feel insulted" by being told, "Bugger the Chinese" (Tim Hanke's comment).

For the record, many Chinese do understand what "bugger" means in English.

Likewise, for the record, no Chinese person has posted that they have been
offended by the remarks of Tim Hanke, nor the NIC article that sparked this
so-called 'debate.'

How can Briarroot be *certain* that "no Chinese person has posted that they
(sic) have been offended"? Do Briarroot's psychic powers enable him to
identify every Chinese person on the internet? Of course, elsewhere Briarroot
already has made the implicit claim that he can read Chinese minds without
ever having to ask any Chinese persons what they really think.

Does Briarroot really contend that the comment, "Bugger the Chinese", *should
not offend* "any Chinese person"? That's a question for the record.

Previously, in the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited', Briarroot apparently
suggested that this "little school yard ditty" (his phrase) among Americans
seems "deliciously humorous" to him, a white American:

You are either a liar, or are guilty of prevarication in the worst sense.
What I clearly said was that it was your use of it as a recent example of
US racism that I found humorous, not the ditty itself, which has been shown
to be both old and British in origin, in any case.

I just looked up some older posts in the huge thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited'.
So here's the relevant exact record of what Briarroot and I wrote therein:

On 6 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to me about my statement that the racist taunt,
"Ching Chong Chinaman" exists (and recently existed) in the United States:
"You really believe this? The possibility that you may think there is any
truth in this is deliciously humorous! You never had much credibility, but
you've dished yourself here. I think all your 'observations' of life in the
USA posses (sic) the same level of accuracy. That is, none at all."

On 7 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to Mark Houlsby, adding a cut-off date of "about
1935" to his previous denial of the existence of "Ching Chong Chinaman":
"I was laughing at Nick's idea of 'common experience' in the USA referencing
language which hasn't been seen since *about 1935*. It seems like he gets
these ideas from pre-war movies."

On 8 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to Mark Houlsby, directly challenging me:
"Where is Nick's proof that this was ever uttered a single time by anybody,
anywhere, at any time?"

So Briarroot had demanded that I prove that "Ching Chong Chinaman" has been
heard in the United States since "about 1935". And I provided *overwhelming
evidence* from both academic and journalistic sources to prove, in *two long
posts* (as intended, nearly all of the evidence was in the second post), that
I was right and Briarroot was wrong about the usage of "Ching Chong Chinaman".

In response to my first post (9 May 2003), Briarroot ignored the evidence and
responded by writing to me (9 May 2003): "Blow it out your ass, Nick!"

My definitive post that *proved* that the racist taunt, "Ching Chong Chinaman",
still exists in the United States was written later on 9 May 2003. Please
read it in the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited' (it has six linkable articles).
"Briarroot has demanded evidence, so he should not complain at all that I am
being an 'Overly Wordy Twit' (his favourite epithet for me) for giving *too
much* of it now...." is how my post began (to make searching for it easier).

(If it's necessary, perhaps someone else can add a link to my post there.)

In response to that post of mine (9 May 2003), providing ample evidence of the
continuing existence of the racist taunt "Ching Chong Chinaman" in the United
States, which he had previously *demanded* from me, Briarroot's response was
*absolute silence*. Apparently, Briarroot continues to ignore *all the
evidence* that he was wrong. Of course, Briarroot would never admit to me
that he could be wrong.

On 10 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to Mark Houlsby, attempting to evade matters:
"That little school yard ditty he quoted is British in origin."

(So far, Briarroot has provided no evidence that it's "British in origin".)

For the record, Briarroot, *not* me, characterises the following chant as a
"little school yard ditty" (I consider it racist and offensive):

"Ching Chong Chinaman went to milk a cow
Ching Chong Chinaman didn't know how
Ching Chong Chinaman pulled the wrong tit
Ching Chong Chinaman covered in ****."

Why did Briarroot choose the innocent expression, "little school yard ditty",
to describe that racist chant? Did he regard it as just "harmless fun"?
Given his evident refusal to regard the explicit comment, "Bugger the Chinese",
as offensive in any way, it's plausible to infer that Briarroot also might
be amused by his "little school yard ditty".

For the record, Briarroot did *not* write that he regarded it as "deliciously
humorous", and I did *not* write that he *wrote* that. I wrote only that (as
I recalled then) Briarroot had "apparently suggested" that it seemed amusing.

As for Briarroot's continuing claim that it's "been shown to both old and
British in origin", he has so far provided *no evidence* to support that claim.
(Apparently, Briarroot feels that it's good enough for him to repeat himself,
saying, in effect, "It must be true because I say so! I am Briarroot!")
Actually, as I recall, that racist chant was mentioned in a website on
*contemporary American* playground chants.

Even *if* it were "British in origin" (and I have *no* reason to believe that
yet), that would *not* excuse those American youngsters who, of their own
volition, might continue to use it to hurt their ethnic Chinese schoolmates.
The responsibility for using (or misusing) a tool belongs to the one who
uses it, not to the one who might have made it long ago.

What a load of nonsense. Your continuing posts on a subject,
which has long died of it's own inertia, point to a personality
disorder, and tend only to reveal more of your own character flaws.

Unlike Briarroot, evidently, I have a busy schedule full of better things to
do than to reply *immediately* to every post. Evidently, Briarroot is hoping
that more readers will forget his record of offensive racist posts here.

Some of my Chinese friends...

I doubt very much if you have *any* friends at all, let alone any Chinese
friends. Your continued claims that you have these mysterious friends
(seemingly of every nationality on the planet!) only reinforces my
conviction that you are a liar.

For the record, Briarroot never has met me, and he knows nearly nothing about
me. Of course, his usual ignorance does not restrain him from drawing cocksure
conclusions about who I am and who my friends are (or are not).

Of course, like most other racist bullies, Briarroot seems to be a coward,
who would hardly risk facing the personal consequences of his vile racism.

What racism?

Briarroot has an ample record of racist comments in his posts here.
Indeed, on account of his many racist comments, Briarroot already has been
explicitly called a "racist" by at least, as far as I know, four persons he
Jerome Bibuld, Mark Houlsby, Goran Tomic, and I. And other persons have
expressed a similar sentiment about Briarroot in more euphemistic terms.

What bullying?

Briarroot also has an ample record of vulgar offensive name-calling here,
which is a tactic characteristic of a bully. And Briarroot has openly
admitted here that he intended to "insult" other people here--which he did.
On account of his continuing flagrant abusive misbehaviour, in the thread
'Zhang Zhong revisited' alone, Briarroot was rebuked by Jerome Bibuld, Mark
Houlsby, John Macnab, PJDBAD, and me.

And who has been offended, other than a load of politically correct,
nanny state, bleeding hearts, like yourself and your lickspittle, Houlsby?

Hence, for the record, does Briarroot really contend that the comment,
"Bugger the Chinese", *should not offend* anyone else, including any Chinese
person?

A pair whose only contribution to public decency seems to be carrying on
with a lengthy and thoroughly banal argument on an obscure Usenet newsgroup.
I consider it my public duty to ridicule your pathetic attempts to smugly
applaud yourselves.

I cannot speak here for Mark Houlsby, but other readers have spoken about me.
Here are some comments on my posts here from a broad variety of readers:

Jerome Bibuld (14 May 2003):
"The general tenor of your posts has been so heartwarmingly human and
winningly intelligent."

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (11 May 2003):
"And I am American in much much more important ways too. But I felt
entertained and amused by your posts and quotes, it was nice."

John Macnab (17 May 2003):
"Great story! Thanks." (for one of my posts in thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited')

Simon Spivack (31 May 2003):
"He (I) is a welcome regular contributor to this group."

Larry Tapper (21 April 2003):
"I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."

Tim Hanke (21 April 2003) to Larry Tapper about me:
"I to enjoy his (my) scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."

Of course, I don't expect any reader to agree with my posts 100% of the time.
Yet my impression is that my posts are more respected than Briarroot's by the
more thoughtful readers here.

--Nick