..
Can Mr. Bibuld rephrase all that nonsense into plain English?

It is strange to see so much jibberish about "colonial subjects" and bizarre
attempts to obfuscate the issues by needlessly redefining terms, followed by
senseless claims about strawmen.
If you want to claim there is a strawman, you need to stand your ground and
stop shifting about by redefining key terms to suit your every whim Such
redefinitions (which were not spelled out clearly, by the way), only serve to
confuse the issue.
..
My position on this is that I detected that which exists in reality:
assumptions which clearly indicated underlying racism. Mr. Bourbacki had no
reason to merely assume that his critics and other so-called "activists" here
are all white -- yet assume this he did.




(Please note that I have called NO ONE "white" or "black", because NO ONE is
either "white" or "black".)


Well, a true *albino* is basically white, having no pigmentation, even in the
eyes.



Another issue is the not-so clever attempt by Mr. Bourbaki to portray himself
and his lickspittle, Mary Houlsby, as hapless outsiders, whose criticisms are
unwelcomed by a cohesive group of racist, flag-waving, all-white, political
hacks -- er, no, make that activists. Preposterous. I don't even own a flag,
so I can neither burn nor wave. And even Nick's lickspittle, Mark Houlsby, has
recognised the fact that I have repeatedly scolded Stan Booz -- among others --
for his *ad hominem* attacks on Nick Bourbaki. That is hardly cohesive, nor
homogenous, especially when you consider the wide spectrum of critics which
have emerged to lash out at these two for their nonproductive name-calling
(racist! liar! racist! liar!).




Apparently, "nomorechess" is under the illusion -- or pretending
that (s)he is


Political correctness is a bear, isn't it? LOL