"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message news:Vu84b.309205$Ho3.43722@sccrnsc03...
"Nick" wrote in message
om...

Nick.....seriously......you gotta let this thread DIE.

Mr. Nemmers:

Unfortunately, you seem to be unaware of the exact chronology here.
There are *two* threads named "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice".

In the *other* thread of that name, on 29 August 2003, I wrote a post in
response to "Briarroot" 'only to clarify my position on some issues that
were raised'. My post really had *nothing* to do with Tim Hanke, who was
hardly even mentioned, and who was *not* criticised by me in *that post*.

*At that time*, I expected that it should have been *my last post* in *that
thread* (not this one) named "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice". I supposed
that "Briarroot" might write a response to me--that's all. Instead, Tim Hanke
decided to jump back in, and Hanke himself wrote (29 August 2003) a post,
allegedly in 'response' to my post to "Briarroot", wherein Hanke included a
link to his website page that lampoons me and Mark Houlsby (who has strongly
supported you in your battles here with Jason Repa and Sam Sloan and others).

My point is simply that *Tim Hanke himself* showed *no* inclination to "let
(that, not this) thread die" because he decided to make another personal
attack on me (and Mark Houlsby) *after* I thought that I had completed all
my writing in *that* thread. Given all his problems at USCF now, why did Tim
Hanke decide to keep personally attacking two writers, me and Mark Houlsby,
who have nothing whatsoever to do with USCF business or politics? I could
not care less about whatever Tim Hanke does in or for the USCF. And I could
not care less about whatever Tim Hanke writes in RGCP as long as he leaves
my name out of it.

So "letting this (or that) thread die", which I had been ready to do earlier,
is *not* a decision that depends entirely on me. Before I wrote here today,
several other persons had written in the "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice"
threads *after* my last posts therein.

I already have explained several times to Tim Hanke that if he decides to stop
making personal attacks on me, then I shall be only too pleased to stop having
to write about him after I have completed my responses. As of 29 August 2003,
however, Tim Hanke had *not* decided yet to stop making personal attacks on me.

Though I don't always agree with you, you seem to be quite an intelligent
individual. Please just let whatever Greg, Stan, "Biarroot", and whomever
else said go. Really....the horse has been dead for quite some time now.

Thanks for writing. Although we have significant differences on some issues,
I have appreciated it that we have been able to communicate with each other in
a civil manner, and I hope that may continue. Also, I hope that you have not
been misled by Jerome Bibuld's recent mischaracterisation of my posts to you
as being part of a 'flame war' (his term). (Unfortunately, Mr. Bibuld seems
ignorant of more matters than just that.) On my part, I do *not* regard myself
as involved in a 'flame war' with you (though I have the right--as have you--to
express my differences on some issues), and I still have more personal respect
for you than I have for some other writers here.

'I am naturally civil when I am civilly used.'
--Tobias Smollett (Peregrine Pickle)

--Nick