From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 28/07/03 05:50 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

.
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.


He did no such thing. He *deduced* it. Which of these people is *not*
caucasian?

snips much nonsense including the already-refuted part about my being Nick's
lickspittle

Bourbaki's opponents have *only* vituperation and lies at their disposal. They
have *no* facts.

Bourbaki has *deduced* the *fact* that those who are making these unprovoked
attacks upon him are all white.

If you can *prove* (i.e. with evidence which would stand up in a court of law)
that either StanB or Briarroot are *not* white then Bourbaki's argument is
screwed, and he looks like a jackass (not for the first time).

If, on the other hand, StanB and Briarroot *are* white, then that *proves*
that, in this case, Bourbaki's acuity, once again, is the greater...

Mark