Nick (The Liar) wrote:


The only remaining question is: does Nick prefer boiled,
baked or barbecued pygmy?
LMAO

The reader may understand why Jerome Bibuld wrote to advise me that
Briarroot is "beneath human dispute".

For the record, Briarroot also has written that, by clear implication
(in opposing Jerome Bibuld), Briarroot supported apartheid in South Africa.
--Nick

(snipped)
In "opposing" as you term it, Bibuld here and now in 2003, I could hardly
have had any effect on apartheid in South Africa which ended many years ago.


Briarroot has distorted what he wrote about his unconditional opposition to
Jerome Bibuld, which was *not* just "here and now in 2003", but evidently
for all times everywhere prior to 25 May 2003.

Bull****!


In the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited" (25 May 2003), Briarroot wrote to
Mark Houlsby (Briarroot's complete post):
"Mark Houlsby (The Particularly Obtuse Twit) wrote:
Briarroot wrote:
Houlsby's obtuseness remains unchallenged.
(snips rest of offensive nonsense)
You've proved Mr. Bibuld right, if nothing else.

If that were true it would be the first time he was ever right about
anything."
--Briarroot (25 May 2003) ("He" refers to Jerome Bibuld here.)

(Later in that thread, Briarroot and Mark Houlsby continued to argue about
whether or not Jerome Bibuld had been "ever right about anything" before in
his life. And Briarroot did *not* retract his evident contention that
Jerome Bibuld never has been "right about anything".)

Hence, according to his own words, Briarroot believes that Jerome Bibuld was
never "right about anything" prior to 25 May 2003 (or that Jerome Bibuld was
always wrong about everything).

So let's go back to the time when apartheid did exist in South Africa.
Either apartheid should exist or apartheid should not exist.
Jerome Bibuld believed that apartheid should *not* exist.

According to his own words, Briarroot believes that Jerome Bibuld must have
been wrong. Hence, the clear implication is that Briarroot believed that
apartheid should exist (which was *not an outrageous position* among many
politically right-wing Americans during the 1950s-80s, though today
evidently most of them prefer to deny ever having believed that).
Of course, I can infer what Briarroot believes (or believed) only from what
he writes here (and not necessarily from what he writes about what he
wrote).

Nick, you're a thimble-rigger! It is *you* who is doing all the
distorting. You are taking my casual, offhand remark about Bibuld's
support of you and Houlsby, and blowing it all out of proportion.
This seems to be one of your favorite tactics. You know very well
what my exact words were. Here's the entire post:

|Mark Houlsby (The Particularly Obtuse Twit) wrote:
|
| Briarroot wrote:
|
| Houlsby's obtuseness remains unchallenged.
|
| snips rest of offensive nonsense
|
| You've proved Mr. Bibuld right, if nothing else...
|
|If that were true it would be the first time he was ever
|right about anything.

Yeah, Nick. This is known as sarcasm. I wasn't claiming to have
heard every word Bibuld has uttered or written, in his entire life.
Only an unimaginative pedant would make such a claim. This is typical
of your attempts to twist the words of your opponents. You can't win
on the merits of your arguments, so you change the rules.
You're a liar and a phony.