Nick wrote:

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.

What a load! You have even posted 'corrections' to your own
inane ramblings.

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.

Nick, you twister. You are the one who is crying racism, (other
than that perennial nutjob, Bibuld) while deliberately overlooking
that I have been laughing at *you*, and making fun of *your* silly
attempts at self-justification, not making fun of any particular
race or nationality. It is all about you, Nick; the Pathetic
Pedantic Twit. It is *your* habit of feigning to be offended, and
pretending not to understand the logic of your opponents that I am
pointing at.

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.

LOL Apology? For what? Calling an ass, an ass? You deserve it!


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."

I'm not a racist just because you say I am, that charge is merely
one example of your attempts at prevarication. My poking fun at
your public breast beating, have nothing whatsoever to do with
racism.


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.

You just called me a racist and a bully. What "authorities"
or "scholarly references" can you claim back up that bit of
nonsense? Clearly you find it tolerable to sling the insults,
but not to receive them. Recognize yourself!

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."

I state my views, you state your views. Unlike you, I know that my
opinions are not heavenly anointed declarations of ulitmate truth.
You seem to think yours are. Hence the source of my mirth at your
continuing pontification. You are afraid to just let things lie
as they are, you must (for reasons best left to psychoanylists) keep
on propping yourself up, while, if we are to take your posts at face
value, no further defense is necessary.

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.

All totally irrelevant to *our* dispute. You portray yourself as a
'good person,' a laughably futile attempt when you simultanesously
turn around an make outright lies.


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.

ROTFLMAO

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!"

This is another one of your blatant lies. Yes I told you to blow
it out your ass, but not as the response you've indicated here.

Here is the full text of that post: (the only post I made on May
9th.

[Nick wrote:
[
[
[ Then how fearless would the 'thick-skinned' Briarroot be if he
[ 'assumed' that he could be treated with reciprocal consideration,
[ or lack thereof?
[
[Blow it out your ass, Nick!
[
[Has Zhang Zhong complained about the NIC article?
[That's the only relevant question. Racism is not
[the subject. All your blather is a fruitless attempt
[at diversion.
[
[You're a typical example of the politically correct
[nanny personality.

As all can now see, Nick is revealed as a shameless liar.


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.

To repeat: You have no evidence that *anyone* anywhere, other than
yourself, has been offended. It's your *supposition* that I object
to, and for good reason. Turning your statement (above) around it
reads: 'Nick already had made the implicit claim that he can read
Chinese minds without ever having to ask any Chinese persons what
they really think.' What's sause for the goose, Nick, is sauce
for the gander. You've offered no proof whatsoever that anyone
was offended by the "Bugger the Chinese" remark, why should I be
held to a higher standard of evidence than yourself?

And again you are caught in a lie when you say that I have made
claims that I can read minds.


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

The question for the record, is why you should make it your business
in the first place. Or are you claiming that the Chinese, (or perhaps
in your warped mind, all non-Americans) are paragons of virtue and
enlightenment, and that racism only exists in America, and it's your
task to bring it the attention of the readers of r.g.c.m.?

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."

Well, thank you Nick for admitting to your lie. What you've just
quoted proves that what I found "deliciously humorous" was your
*opinion* not as you just wrote: "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"

Are you now ready to apologize to me, Nick? You are a liar and
a prevaricator, you've just proved it to everyone, yet again.

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".

I must now withdraw the assertion that this 'ditty' hasn't been heard
since pre-war times. In doing some research on google, I discovered
the this thing had indeed been heard, perhaps recently. I was wrong.
But Nick, this doesn't let you off the hook. You have still been
found to be a liar.


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!"

An apt expression of my regard for you, and your so-called "evidence."
But again, you prevaricate. You are pretending that this epithet was
written in response to your presenting evidence of the existence of
that ditty. You know very well it was not. The entire post is quoted
above. Now everyone (if there is anyone left reading this thread!)
else knows you for a liar, as well.


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).

You hold yourself to remarkable lower standards than you wish to
apply to me and my arguments. Why is that?


(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.

I just admitted it. See above. However this does not exhonerate
you from your many distortions, false constructs, and outright lies.


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".)

One of the pages that google sent me to indicated a UK origin.
http://www.odps.org/slangc.html
How accurate that is, I've know way of knowing. Another page also
spoke of hearing it in Australia. Yet another page told of a
Japanese-American who used the phrase "Ching Chong Chinaman" during
his childhood.


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 ****."

You keep repeating this. chuckle If I were to use your pathetic
logic, I would say that *you* are the racist since you seem to enjoy
reposting this. And of course, it's a schoolyard ditty, do you think
adults go around spouting such silly rhymes? I don't know (or care all
that much) about schoolyards in your homeland, but here in the USA, any
child singing such crap would be ostracized; not because of the blatant
racism, but because of the absolute silliness of the subject matter.
In American schoolyards today, if it ain't rap, it's crap. Do you
really think that contemporary American kids even know how cows are
milked? You are truly an idiot of the first magnitude!

Why did Briarroot choose the innocent expression, "little school yard
ditty", to describe that racist chant? Did he regard it as just
"harmless fun"?

I just explained my reasoning. However, if I were employ your favored
methodology, I would ask: Does Nick keep repeating this outrageously
racist ditty because he is himself, a racist?


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".

LOL The one is as archaic and foolish as the other. Only in your
mind, Nick, has there been anything amiss. You are truly twisted.


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.

Whoa-ho! Now you're backpedaling. ROTFLMAO! What you originally
said is quoted above in black and white. There's no point in your
trying to weasel your way out of it. Though that is OBVIOUSLY part
of your character.


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.

LOL You must be from the planet Venus if you think *anything* like
this is heard on any American playground! Btw, it is you who have
now repeated yourself in the same post. What a weasel!


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.

And it gives you great pleasure to point out the failings of
American schoolchildren, doesn't it?

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.

What a load of crap. These threads are the high point of your bleak
existence. Come on, admit it!

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).

Had I met you, I might have been forced to be rude in your face.
For small favors, I am exceedingly thankful!

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.

LOL How pathetic! You critcize me above for thinking that my
opinions have more validity than your own, yet here you assume
exactly the same stance, expecting immunity! A remarkable
display of duplicity. As for those persons that you have just
cited, I must laughingly point out that that they are not persons
whose opinions are widely respected here on r.g.c.m. Not that this
is any condemnation mind you, but more specifically: Bibuld is
rather a laughingstock around here for his views which apparently
envision the whole of the USA as being fascist, (meaning anyone
whose politics are slightly to the right of Karl Marx) and anyone
who does not bow down and worship before a portrait of Nelson Mandela,
he calls a racist; Houlsby is apparently your lickspittle who worships
at your feet, hardly a non partisan voice; Tomic is a newcomeer here,
and though he has only been posting a short while he has already
established himself as being completely irrational. This is hardly
a crew who I would want on my side in an argument!


What bullying?

Briarroot also has an ample record of vulgar offensive name-calling here,
which is a tactic characteristic of a bully.

Nonsense! And what better example of bullying can there be than
yourself, who labels those who disagree with his openly anti-
American views, and those who disagree with his politically correct
nannying as racists and bullies?

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.

Now this I readily admit to. You deserve to be insulted, roundly
and repeatedly. I consider it my duty to expose you and your toady,
Houlsby. I don't recall what PJ said, but John McNab is the only one
whose opinion, (though I continue to disagree with him), I have
respect for. Why, you may ask? Because he had the courtesy to allow
me to hold my opinions, without trying, as you have done, to pillory
me as a racist or a bully. Mr. McNab simply stated his opinion,
recieved my response and left things as they were, though he did
correctly remark upon my rudeness and crudeness. That is the mark
of a respectable gentleman. You, by way of contrast, are a sick
individual. That last sentence is me Observing the Obvious.

And further, if it is so clear that I such an offensive oaf, whose
views are unworthy of discussion, why are you so intent on answering
me? Could it be that you don't believe your own rhetoric? Could it
be that you know yourself better than you care to admit, and that
you *need* to keep up this pretense at moral and intellectual
superiority over an 'offensive name caller' such as myself. Your
actions belie your words!


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?

Taken out of proper context, the word 'hello' can be offensive.
What I maintain is that the use made of the phrase was aimed at
you, not at the Chinese. It was aimed at inflaming you, which
it has so OBVIOUSLY done.


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:

ROFL Truth is not democratic. It cannot be voted upon.

[snip]

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.

On the other hand, I have received several email messages supporting
me in my continuing efforts to expose you for the charlatan that your
are. These readers, for whatever reasons, don't wish to make their
views public. While it's possible they don't wish to be bullied by
you and labeled racists, it doesn't really matter why they have
chosen to remain unheard. As I say, truth is not democratic.