illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
Nick wrote (to Mark Houlsby):
Whatever his personal failings, such as his racism, StanB is a proudly
flag-waving white American. Accordingly, StanB seems to be considered
"one of our own" by his fellow American political activists here

Read that again, *very carefully.*

"Some boys are born stupid; some achieve stupidity; some have stupidity
thrust upon them."
--Samuel Butler (The Way of All Flesh)

NoMoreChess does belong to one of those classes of stupidity, though I cannot
be certain of which one.

Mr. Bourbaki is, for some reason or other, assumming that Stan Booz is
"white" (see above), and that he is "considered one of our own" by his
"fellow" political activists here.

NoMoreChess has misunderstood or distorted what I meant by writing "fellow".
(For the record, he cut the adjective "American" from "fellow political
activists", and he changed my verb "seems to be" to "is".)

In my phrase, "his *fellow* American political activists here", "fellow"
refers *only* to those American political activists here (such as Tim Hanke
and Briarroot) who evidently *share StanB's beliefs* on such widely debated
issues here as American racism and imperialism, *not* specific USCF issues,
of which, as I already have stated, I have no interest and no opinion.

In short, my phrase, "his fellow American political activists here", refers
*only* to Stan Booz's political comrades ("fellows") on the extreme American
right-wing here. I have no doubt that those Americans (such as Tim Hanke
and Briarroot) seem to consider Stan Booz as "one of (their) own".

Which is to say, assumming we follow this racist "logic," that *all* the
political activists here are, for no reason whatever, presumed by Nick to be
"white." I'd say this sort of behavior demonstrates an underlying racist
attitude, not to mention considerable ignorance.

NoMoreChess's attack on me is utterly ludicrous, baseless, and dishonest.

Is NoMoreChess *seriously* contending that Stan Booz (StanB) is *not* a
white American? NoMoreChess also makes the baseless accusation that I presumed
that "all the (NoMoreChess cut my significant adjective, "American") political
activists here" are white. I presumed nothing of that kind, and I did not
write anything that implied that I did believe that.

Stan Booz is a widely known writer in these chess newsgroups, and he's also
well-known in USCF circles, particularly around Pennsylvania. And it's common
knowledge that Stan Booz is a white American (an American of European descent).
I have been informed of that fact by someone who has met Stan Booz in person.
Hence, it's a statement of fact, *not* a racist assumption (as NoMoreChess
has claimed), that Stan Booz is a white American. And I doubt that StanB
would object to my further characterisation of him as "proudly flag-waving".

Contrary to NoMoreChess's baseless claim that I have been practising "racist
'logic'", it's an empirical fact that Stan Booz is a white American. (For
the sake of a working definition here, a "white American" is someone who's
generally perceived by other Americans as an American of European descent.)
Would NoMoreChess accuse me of practising "racist 'logic'" if I were to write
that GM Maurice Ashley (whom I have met in person) is an African American?

Moreover, on some previous occasions, when responding StanB's posts that
included racist comments aimed *only* at non-whites, I have described Stan
Booz as a "white American". And Stan Booz *never* has expressed any objection
to the accuracy of my characterisation of him as a "white American".

If Stan Booz had ever written to me, hypothetically:
"Nick, you are mistaken. I am not a white American; I am an African American."
Then I would have replied:
"Stan, I am sorry for what I wrote about you. Now what do you really think
about 'Bwana' (as you tend to say) Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court?"

So here's Stan Booz's opportunity to proclaim his pride in his African
American heritage--if it exists--to the world! :-)

"It is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak, and
remove all doubt."

NoMoreChess is a frequent example of that when he writes here.
'dulce est desipere in loco' (Horace)

BTW, not everyone here has identical political views, and certainly not every
American political activist here agrees with Stan Booz' "my country, right or
wrong" mindset.

Does NoMoreChess really believe that I was unaware of Jerome Bibuld's political
views of the United States and how greatly they differ from Stan Booz's?

Obviously, Stan Booz -- whatever the shade of his skin happens to be at the
moment -- is far from "beyond reproach" by self-styled "outsiders."

Is NoMoreChess suggesting that Stan Booz could change his racial identity
in the United States at a future moment?

Characteristically, NoMoreChess has snipped my original statement in order
to make it easier for him to describe it in distorted form for the purposes
of his attack against it.

Here's what I wrote to Mark Houlsby:
"Accordingly, StanB seems to be considered 'one of our own' by his fellow
American political activists here and consequently perhaps beyond reproach
from any outsiders such as you or me."

That meant only that Stan Booz's "fellow American political activists here"
(such as Tim Hanke and Briarroot) would consider him "perhaps beyond
reproach" by Mark Houlsby and me, who definitely don't belong, as they do,
to the extreme American political right-wing.

The trouble is, hard evidence of a thing like racism is difficult to come
by. And besides, these petty disputes are not really about principles or
virtues, they are about *pride*.

Does NoMoreChess really believe that every view has approximately equivalent
merit, regardless of how much, if any, evidence supports it?

Robert Faurisson (the real one) should be pleased by that perspective,
which places the best scholarly historians of modern Germany and "Holocaust
revisionists/deniers" on an approximately equivalent footing of plausibility.

"I don't believe or disbelieve anything I don't understand."
--Gertrude Atherton (Senator North)

--Nick