Nick wrote:
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.)


http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2D941035

snip
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.chess.misc