-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ...
From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 28/07/03 05:50 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:
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?

For the record, my original post in this subthread (26 July 2003) described
*only* StanB as "a proudly flag-waving white American", and that post did
*not* mention any other names here. Also, I did *not* have to 'deduce' that
StanB's white; I was informed of that fact by someone who has met Stan Booz
in person. Stan Booz is rather well-known in USCF circles, and I have some
sources of information among American chess-players.

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

That statement always has been true. And, in addition to Mark Houlsby,
some readers here seem to have been able to recognise it too, at least to
the extent that they have written their public appreciations of my posts:

Jerome Bibuld (14 May 2003)
"The general tenor of your posts has been so heartwarmingly human and
winningly intelligent."

Bill Brock (10 July 2003)
"Bravo. I concur with all your major points."

Jerzy Ciruk (5 August 2003)
"You are absolutely right." (about the Soviet media's coverage of Kasparov)

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (11 May 2003)
"And I am American in much much more important ways too. But I felt
entertained and amused by your posts and quotes, it was nice."

John Macnab (17 May 2003)
"Great story! Thanks."

George Mirijanian (12 June 2003)
"I agree with Nick." (on my translation of 'gens una sumus')

Simon Spivack (31 May 2003)
"He (I) is a welcome regular contributor to this group."

Larry Tapper (21 April 2003)
"I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."

Tim Hanke (21 April 2003) to Larry Tapper about me:
"I too enjoy his (my) scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."

For example, like software with a fatal bug, "Briarroot" has been operating
while stuck in an apparently infinite loop of pathological lies about me.

1) "Briarroot" lies about me.
2) I or Mark Houlsby cite the evidence to prove that "Briarroot" lied.
3a) "Briarroot" completely snips the response(s) and exclaims, "Bull****!" or
3b) "Briarroot" almost completely snips the responses(s) except for one or two
minor parts, which then he distorts and proceeds to attack by another lie.
4) "Briarroot" lies again, often just reiterating an already confuted lie.
Go to step 1.

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

1) I know that Tim Hanke is white because I have seen his photograph.
2) I know that Stan Booz is white because I have been informed of that by
someone who has met him in person.
3) I have inferred from his many racist comments here directed only against
non-whites that "Briarroot" is 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...

I have been ready to write a statement of regret if either Stan Booz or
"Briarroot" (or Tim Hanke) were to proclaim here that he's definitely *not*
white, though I don't know what effect that news might have on their families.

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.

Perhaps Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") should get a new telescope? :-)

"The eye only sees that which brings with it the power of seeing."
--Charles Kingsley (Alton Locke)

--Nick