This post responds to Briarroot's apparent attempted "magnum opus"
(9 July 2003), which chiefly consists of his usual invective and
crudely attempted "proofs by assertion", which I have tended to
snip out of mercy to the reader. Briarroot's complete diatribe
may be read earlier in this thread.

In the thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice" (13 July 2003),
Mark Houlsby (who writes independently of me and sometimes has
criticised me) wrote a detailed confutation of Briarroot's lies
and distortions in his "magnum opus".

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R23F52185

For the record, here's Briarroot's response to Mark Houlsby:
"If that post doesn't perfectly illustrate my point about you
being Nick's eager lapdog, nothing ever will. One other quick
point: it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree with a
certain position because truth is not democratic."

In short, Briarroot avoided addressing any of Mark Houlsby's
specific points about Briarroot's lies and distortions.

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:
(snipped)
In my view, like everyone else, Briarroot continues to be fully
responsible for whatever he has written here unless and until he
writes a retraction or makes an apology for it, specifically....

LOL Apology? For what? Calling an ass, an ass? You deserve it!

(snipped)
Now, as for comparing my "ego" with Briarroot's:
On one hand, I respect my readers enough to tell them, whenever
practicable, "You don't just have to take my word for what I write:
here are my sources and here are references for further reading."
I tend to cite my sources, to quote authorities, and to list more
scholarly references for further study. In short, I aim to support
my views with evidence and reasoned arguments.

You just called me a racist and a bully. What "authorities" or
"scholarly references" can you claim back up that bit of nonsense?...

As usual, Briarroot's objection is ludicrous.
I prefer to cite "scholarly references" whenever they are
available and relevant. Of course, in Briarroot's case there
are two significant factors:

1) "Briarroot" is an insignificant racist, not worth any scholar's
attention. Why should any scholar write about "Briarroot"?
2) The real name of "Briarroot" is not publicly known, so how
could any scholar find any real references to use in writing
about "Briarroot"?

The evidence of Briarroot's posts here shows that Briarroot is a
racist, at least with regard to his behaviour in this newsgroup.
A historian does *not* need to prove again and again, for instance,
that the Holocaust existed just because someone keeps denying that
it did.

On the other hand, Briarroot tends to run around here exclaiming,
"Observe the obvious!" (or sometimes simply, "Bull****"), ergo,
his latest conclusion. In effect, Briarroot keeps telling us
something like: "You must believe that I am right because I am
Briarroot! No other evidence is required."

I state my views, you state your views. Unlike you, I know that my
opinions are not heavenly anointed declarations of ulitmate truth....

Apparently, Briarroot suggests that every view is of about
equivalent merit, regardless of how much evidence supports it,
and equally worth considering. "Holocaust deniers" everywhere
should be delighted to support that position.

Furthermore, I appreciate meaningful factual corrections to my
posts, and I have thanked the readers who have made them. For
example, I have thanked George Mirijanian for correcting my post
on Sanskrit etymology and Wlodzimierz Holsztynski for correcting
my post on Ramsey theory. Also, I have thanked some readers for
mentioning new facts that were relevant to my posts. For example,
I have thanked Bob Bennett for revealing facts about Zsuzsa Polgar's
personal life and Jerome Bibuld for facts about the world of
tournament bridge.

All totally irrelevant to *our* dispute. You portray yourself as a
'good person,' a laughably futile attempt when you simultanesously turn
around an make outright lies.

Briarroot's continuing ad hominem abuse reveals his true
character, not mine.

Needless to say, when, at his specific *demand*, I proved Briarroot
wrong about the contemporary existence of the racist expression,
"Ching Chong Chinaman" in the United States, Briarroot did *not* thank
me. Instead, he became enraged and responded by writing (9 May 2003)
in the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited": "Blow it out your ass, Nick!"

This is another one of your blatant lies. Yes I told you to blow
it out your ass, but not as the response you've indicated here.

1) I did *not* claim that I had quoted Briarroot's *complete post*.
2) I identified Briarroot's post by both its thread and its date,
so that any interested reader could easily find and read it on
one's own.
3) The rest of Briarroot's post was *not* relevant: it did *not*
support Briarroot's deliberate insult, "Blow it out your ass,
Nick!"
4) Again, Briarroot is lying whenever he makes that accusation
against me.

Here is the full text of that post: (the only post I made on May 9th.
[Nick wrote:
[

Of course, Briarroot completely snipped my evidence that had proved
him wrong.

[
[ Then how fearless would the 'thick-skinned' Briarroot be if he
[ 'assumed' that he could be treated with reciprocal consideration,
[ or lack thereof?
[
[Blow it out your ass, Nick!
[
[Has Zhang Zhong complained about the NIC article?
[That's the only relevant question. Racism is not
[the subject. All your blather is a fruitless attempt
[at diversion.
[
[You're a typical example of the politically correct
[nanny personality.

As all can now see, Nick is revealed as a shameless liar.

Briarroot seems to be a solipsist; how many voices does he hear
in his head?

Briarroot wrote:
Likewise, for the record, no Chinese person has posted that they
have been offended by the remarks of Tim Hanke, nor the NIC
article that sparked this so-called 'debate.'

How can Briarroot be *certain* that "no Chinese person has posted
that they (sic) have been offended"? Do Briarroot's psychic powers
enable him to identify every Chinese person on the internet? Of
course, elsewhere Briarroot already has made the implicit claim
that he can read Chinese minds without ever having to ask any
Chinese persons what they really think.

To repeat: You have no evidence that *anyone* anywhere, other than
yourself, has been offended. It's your *supposition* that I object
to, and for good reason.

I have been amazed by the lengths to which a racist such as Briarroot
has gone in disputing the commonsense opinion that Tim Hanke's
comment, "Bugger the Chinese", *could* be offensive to anyone.

Turning your statement (above) around it reads: 'Nick already had made the
implicit claim that he can read Chinese minds without ever having to ask any
Chinese persons what they really think.' What's sause for the goose, Nick,
is sauce for the gander....

1) I know what my Chinese friends think because they have told me.
2) Briarroot's rhetorical inversion shows another of his infantile
traits.

And again you are caught in a lie when you say that I have made claims
that I can read minds.

Mark Houlsby already has confuted this lie by Briarroot.

I did *not* write *literally*, of course, that Briarroot has "made
claims that (he) can read minds". I do *not* believe that Briarroot
"can read minds" (If he could, then he should not seem so obsessed
about identifying my "homeland".), but Briarroot sometimes acts
*as though* he "can read minds". So I *sarcastically* wrote of
Briarroot's "amazing psychic powers".

In the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited" (4 May 2003), I wrote:
"Briarroot has made some unwarranted and offensive speculations
(which he regards as 'obvious' fact) about a conversation between
GM Xie Jun and me. Given that Briarroot was not present then, I
can only wonder why his amazing psychic powers are not being
exploited more usefully elsewhere."

Briarroot may be too stupid to recognise sarcasm.

Does Briarroot really contend that the comment, "Bugger the Chinese",
*should not offend* "any Chinese person"? That's a question for the
record.

The question for the record, is why you should make it your business in
the first place.

Briarroot evaded my question, but I shall answer his question.

I believe in the humanistic principle of 'gens una sumus'.
I am a human being. The Chinese are human beings, my brothers
and sisters in our family of humanity. I believe that treating
every people with equal respect, being opposed to racism, simply
means being pro-human.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal..."
--the United States Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

Or are you claiming that the Chinese, (or perhaps in your warped mind, all
non-Americans) are paragons of virtue and enlightenment, and that racism only
exists in America, and it's your task to bring it the attention of the
readers of r.g.c.m.?

I already have written about racism outside the United States.

Previously, in the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited', Briarroot
apparently suggested that this "little school yard ditty" (his
phrase) among Americans seems "deliciously humorous" to him, a
white American:

You are either a liar, or are guilty of prevarication in the worst
sense. What I clearly said was that it was your use of it as a
recent example of US racism that I found humorous, not the ditty
itself, which has been shown to be both old and British in origin,
in any case.

I just looked up some older posts in the huge thread, 'Zhang Zhong
revisited'. So here's the relevant exact record of what Briarroot
and I wrote therein:

On 6 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to me about my statement that the racist
taunt, "Ching Chong Chinaman" exists (and recently existed) in the
United States: "You really believe this? The possibility that you may
think there is any truth in this is deliciously humorous! You never had
much credibility, but you've dished yourself here. I think all your
'observations' of life in the USA posses (sic) the same level of accuracy.
That is, none at all."

Well, thank you Nick for admitting to your lie.

For the sake of an accurate record, I was reproducing the posts.
I did *not* lie, though Briarroot aims at his usual distortion.

What you've just quoted proves that what I found "deliciously humorous"
was your *opinion* not as you just wrote: "Previously, in the thread,
'Zhang Zhong revisited', Briarroot apparently suggested that this "little
school yard ditty" (his phrase) among Americans seems "deliciously
humorous" to him, a white American"

Yes, as I recalled then, Briarroot "apparently suggested" that
within the context of his many other posts in the "Zhang Zhong
revisited" thread. If the reader cares to read every post in
the vast "Zhang Zhong revisited" thread in chronological order,
then one might be able to understand why that seems plausible.

I did *not* write that Briarroot *wrote* that specifically in
*his cited post*; and Briarroot prefers to ignore the evidence
of his other posts in that thread.

Are you now ready to apologize to me, Nick? You are a liar and
a prevaricator, you've just proved it to everyone, yet again.

Briarroot is a true believer in reiterated "proof by assertion".

On 7 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to Mark Houlsby, adding a cut-off
date of "about 1935" to his previous denial of the existence of
"Ching Chong Chinaman": "I was laughing at Nick's idea of 'common
experience' in the USA referencing language which hasn't been seen
since *about 1935*. It seems like he gets these ideas from pre-war
movies."

On 8 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to Mark Houlsby, directly challenging me:
"Where is Nick's proof that this was ever uttered a single time by anybody,
anywhere, at any time?"

So Briarroot had demanded that I prove that "Ching Chong Chinaman" has been
heard in the United States since "about 1935". And I provided *overwhelming
evidence* from both academic and journalistic sources to prove, in *two long
posts* (as intended, nearly all of the evidence was in the second post),
that I was right and Briarroot was wrong about the usage of "Ching Chong
Chinaman".

I must now withdraw the assertion that this 'ditty' hasn't been heard
since pre-war times. In doing some research on google, I discovered
the this thing had indeed been heard, perhaps recently. I was wrong.
But Nick, this doesn't let you off the hook. You have still been
found to be a liar.

On 9 May 2003 in a direct response to Briarroot, I already proved the
existence of the racist taunt, "Ching Chong Chinaman", in the United
States. Briarroot decided to ignore all that evidence and continued
to maintain his lies about it until his reluctant admission (above)
of 9 July 2003.

In response to my first post (9 May 2003), Briarroot ignored the evidence
and responded by writing to me (9 May 2003): "Blow it out your ass, Nick!"

An apt expression of my regard for you, and your so-called "evidence."
But again, you prevaricate. You are pretending that this epithet was
written in response to your presenting evidence of the existence of
that ditty. You know very well it was not. The entire post is quoted
above. Now everyone (if there is anyone left reading this thread!)
else knows you for a liar, as well.

Briarroot is a true believer in reiterated "proof by assertion".

My definitive post that *proved* that the racist taunt, "Ching Chong
Chinaman", still exists in the United States was written later on 9
May 2003. Please read it in the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited' (it
has six linkable articles). "Briarroot has demanded evidence, so he
should not complain at all that I am being an 'Overly Wordy Twit' (his
favourite epithet for me) for giving *too much* of it now...." is how
my post began (to make searching for it easier).

You hold yourself to remarkable lower standards than you wish to apply
to me and my arguments. Why is that?

Briarroot's comment is ludicrous. I provide ample evidence;
Briarroot tends to exclaim, "Observe the obvious!"

(If it's necessary, perhaps someone else can add a link to my post there.)
In response to that post of mine (9 May 2003), providing ample evidence of
the continuing existence of the racist taunt "Ching Chong Chinaman" in the
United States, which he had previously *demanded* from me, Briarroot's
response was *absolute silence*. Apparently, Briarroot continues to ignore
*all the evidence* that he was wrong. Of course, Briarroot would never
admit to me that he could be wrong.

I just admitted it. See above. However this does not exhonerate
you from your many distortions, false constructs, and outright lies.

Briarroot "admitted it" only after two months of denying it.

On 10 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to Mark Houlsby, attempting to evade
matters: "That little school yard ditty he quoted is British in origin."
(So far, Briarroot has provided no evidence that it's "British in origin".)

One of the pages that google sent me to indicated a UK origin.
http://www.odps.org/slangc.html

That's another Briarroot distortion.

That webpage mentions *only one example of the usage* of 'Ching
Chong Chinaman' in the United Kingdom during the 1960s; it made
no claim whatsoever about its *origin*. In fact, according to
Asian Americans, the racist taunt, 'Ching Chong Chinaman', was
heard in the United States *before* the 1960s.

(snipped)
For the record, Briarroot did *not* write that he regarded it as
"deliciously humorous", and I did *not* write that he *wrote* that.
I wrote only that (as I recalled then) Briarroot had "apparently
suggested" that it seemed amusing.

Whoa-ho! Now you're backpedaling. ROTFLMAO! What you originally
said is quoted above in black and white. There's no point in your
trying to weasel your way out of it. Though that is OBVIOUSLY part
of your character.

Any competent reader should be able to understand the distinction
between "he wrote" and "he apparently suggested", though Briarroot
does not or prefers to distort it.

(snipped)
For the record, Briarroot never has met me, and he knows nearly nothing
about me. Of course, his usual ignorance does not restrain him from drawing
cocksure conclusions about who I am and who my friends are (or are not).

Had I met you, I might have been forced to be rude in your face.
For small favors, I am exceedingly thankful!

(snipped)
And Briarroot has openly admitted here that he intended to "insult" other
people here--which he did. On account of his continuing flagrant abusive
misbehaviour, in the thread 'Zhang Zhong revisited' alone, Briarroot was
rebuked by Jerome Bibuld, Mark Houlsby, John Macnab, PJDBAD, and me.

Now this I readily admit to. You deserve to be insulted, roundly and
repeatedly. I consider it my duty to expose you and your toady, Houlsby....

Any reader who's not deranged should be able to understand that
Briarroot's declaration of his intent removes any *obligation* for
me to respond to him at all, though I retain the *right* to respond
whenever I choose.

You, by way of contrast, are a sick individual. That last sentence is me
Observing the Obvious....

And that's more evidence of Briarroot's derangement.

'In one sense all misconduct is proof of insanity.'
--Anthony Trollope (He Knew He Was Right)

--Nick