This is a repost of my original post of 8 July 2003, which was lost by Google.
I have been informed by the Google people that they had a technical problem
that caused my original post not to show up on my newsreader and not to be
saved in the Google archives. I have had the same problem with other posts.

NoMoreChess *already* has responded elsewhere in this thread to my original
post of 8 July 2003, and I shall respond to NoMoreChess there accordingly.
So it's unnecessary for NoMoreChess to respond to this repost here.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
Nick, if you think that Eastern martial arts experts can quite easily take on
and defeat an American, then you must have missed some of the following
contradictory movies:

For the record, I *never* wrote that, and I do *not* believe that.
Instead, I believe that expertise in martial arts, as in chess, can be
equally gained by persons of any nationality or race: gens una sumus.
What's relevant is comparing the skills of the *individuals* competing.

...Clearly, even *half-Americans* are not afraid of the Chinese!

NoMoreChess's assertion about a "half-American" (who's also a "half-Chinese")
seems to have a distasteful insinuation. gens una sumus

Remenber the movie in which the Chinese Bruce Lee...

In fact, Bruce Lee was born of Chinese parents in the United States in 1940,
which made him a U.S. citizen by birth. On the other hand, most Americans
(like NoMoreChess, apparently) tended to perceive Bruce Lee only as Chinese
throughout his life in the United States.

This all seems to be blown way, way out of proportion. Someone suggested
that the USCF should change the way they handle player names to better suit
the Chinese, and then came the "insensitive" reply, bugger the Chinese --
next thing you know, you'll want us to adopt their calendar, as well, etc.

For the record, Bill Smythe made that suggestion, and then Tim Hanke wrote:
"Bugger the Chinese..." Does NoMoreChess care to dispute that Hanke's reply
was "insensitive"?

To me, this was a rejection of adapting things to suit one special interest
(here, the Chinese, whose foreign names are not formatted the same as ours).
Granted, this particular "minority group," or special interest, is gigantic,
if looked at from an *international* perspective.

This is similar to rejecting the use of the Chinese calendar in place of our
own, purely AMERICAN calendar (Tiu'sday, Woden'sday, Thor'sday, Frigga'sday,
Saturn'sday, Sun-day, Moonday). To try and turn such a rejection into an
attack upon the Chinese by "extracting" racism, is rather desperate.

NoMoreChess utterly misunderstands what I have been writing about lately.

Actually, my latest posts with regard to Briarroot have referred to his
apparent implied defence of Tim Hanke's comment, "Bugger the Chinese", as
being *not* (Briarroot wrote that he "doubts" it) offensive to "*any*
Chinese" (Briarroot's words).

Does NoMoreChess regard the expression, "Bugger the Chinese", as intrinsically
non-racist and inoffensive to everyone? That's a question for the record.

You are stooping to puerille name-calling, when you toss out words like
"bigot," "coward," and "bully," among many others....

In my previous posts, I have provided evidence to support my contention,
which is shared by other people here, that Briarroot is a "racist".

I doubt that NoMoreChess has carefully read and accurately remembered
everything that I have written about Briarroot with regard to this point.
Or perhaps he prefers *not* to read all the evidence before he jumps to
his conclusions. Other people here have written similar complaints about
NoMoreChess.

Moreover, unlike many other readers here, NoMoreChess seems to have overlooked
Briarroot's record of frequent vulgar name-calling here as well as Briarroot's
open admission that he intends to "insult" other people, including me.

You pretend to be defending the poor, hapless Chinese, who are supposed to
be "victimized" by the particular phrasing of a rejection of one idea. But
it is a very thinly veiled pretense.

Actually, I also am defending what I believe should be some standards of civil
discussion he one should *not* feel free to use offensive language such as
"Bugger the Chinese" (Tim Hanke's expression) and be immune from criticism.

Does NoMoreChess believe that it's acceptable to use any anti-Chinese slur
whatsoever here? That's a question for the record.

In the huge thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited", this dispute began between
Briarroot and me and some other persons on my side (Jerome Bibuld, Mark
Houlsby, and John Macnab) in general. The thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited",
has grown by now to nearly 300 posts. I doubt that NoMoreChess has carefully
read and accurately remembered the many posts therein that would be relevant
to understanding all the issues of this dispute. And, evidently, given the
ignorant and misinformed premises of his post to me, NoMoreChess does *not*
really understand all the issues of this dispute.

By the way, in the thread, "OT: Civility" (28 May 2003), NoMoreChess wrote
an inane post in response to me, evidently based on his severe misunderstanding
that my post to him was intended to disagree entirely with him. In fact,
my post to him began by saying, "I would *agree*..." (with NoMoreChess), but
NoMoreChess seems to have read it too carelessly to have understood that.
Also, in his "response" to me, NoMoreChess seemed to assume that I was fully
writing on behalf of Mark Houlsby (or, perhaps, even that I *was* Mark Houlsby!)
In fact, I did *not* fully agree with what Mark Houlsby had written to
NoMoreChess.

In the past, several other people here, as far as I can recall, also have
criticised NoMoreChess for not reading their posts carefully enough and for
writing his mistaken responses that were based on serious misunderstandings
of what they had written. NoMoreChess's post to which I am responding now
is another of those examples.

(originally posted on 8 July 2003 but lost from the Google archives)

--Nick