Mhoulsby wrote:
From: John Macnab
Date: 12/07/03 16:07 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

I would like to keep my name reasonably distant from the current
degeneration of these arguments, please.



That very well may be, unfortunately, however, since Briarroot has now
published a distortion of something which *you* wrote, it may not be
possible..

This one seems minor



I did say that Briarroot was *being* rude and foolish in a particular
post; I made no claims with regard to his general demeanor or character.


Fair point.


(By the way, he good-naturedly agreed with my assessment.)



I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you give a specific reference,
please?

On May 28, Briarroot responded to my May 27 post:
"John Macnab wrote:

Briarroot

You are being both rude and foolish. I believe that it is good manners
to attempt to address people by the name that they themselves use. If
that makes me a "PC type" to small-minded people, then so be it.
Calling people names and attempting to overwhelm their sincere effort to
communicate their ideas doesn't make their ideas or words unworthy. But
it does reduce the desire to communicate with the like of you.

I admit to being rude, and on occasion I can be very
foolish. But good manners or no, I think this little
controversy has been blown way out of proportion, and
I will continue to think so until Zhang Zhong weighs
in with his opinion; if in fact, he cares at all.
In my opinion, it is "small-minded people" (in contrast
with broad minded people) who instigate these things.

I think the nick-names I given my two opponents are
humorous and I wouldn't mind if they hung one on me
in response. They aren't obscene and only mildly
derogatory. One should wear a thick skin if one wishes
to speak in public. And after all, what's in a name?"


It's true that *not everything* that Briarroot has written has been ignorant,
stupid, vituperative and generally moronic, but it's equally true that *almost
everything* he has written has matched that very description. What was the
exception which proved the rule?




Anyway, a few threads have become the rgcm equivalent of Jerry Springer.
Unfortunately, if I happen to scroll past them, I tune in for a few
minutes of disgust and loathing.



Are you seriously arguing that Briarroot's many ignorant and offensive posts do
not fit your apt description?


The best thing about USENET is that everyone has a voice. And the worst
thing about USENET is that everyone has a voice.

IMHO the participants have by and large forgotten the issues that began
the threads and are spending a lot of time positioning themselves as
favourably as possible in a pig-wresting contest. Unfortunate.

And for those who forgot, the original issues in the thread a
1. Zhang Zhong appears prepared to make a splash on the world scene, and
2. It is polite to use a person's name correctly.

John



Indeed it is unfortunate, but so is providing trolls with ammuntion to pursue a
divide-and-rule strategy. Kindly refrain from doing so in the future, or you
certainly *will* become *more* embroiled in flame wars...


PS When did NoMoreChess get so sensible?



He DID? When? Where?

He been quite astute all weekend, I think. He targeted Briarroot on
Friday, and gave you a couple of gentle cuffs on Saturday.

Best
Mark

Always a pleasure.

John