Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Liar) wrote:
Briarroot 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

Briarroot wrote:
(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.
...
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.

After Briarroot's comment on Jerome Bibuld in the "Zhang Zhong
revisited" thread, Briarroot *continued* to argue against Mark
Houlsby about whether or not Jerome Bibuld was "ever right about
anything" before. In his later posts, Briarroot had ample
opportunities to retract or to qualify his unconditional assertion
that Jerome Bibuld had never been right before.

In particular, Briarroot *might* have written, "Jerome Bibuld has
never been right about anything *except* his opposing apartheid",
but Briarroot *never* wrote that.

In "Zhang Zhong revisited" (26 May 2003), I wrote to Briarroot:
"For the record, it should be noted that Briarroot believes, at
least by implication, that Jerome Bibuld was wrong to oppose
apartheid in South Africa."

Then Briarroot *had* the opportunity to write, hypothetically:
"I regret what I wrote about Jerome Bibuld having never been
right before. Actually, I believe that he was right to oppose
apartheid in South Africa."

But Briarroot did *not* write anything like that, and Briarroot
did *not* dispute the implication that he believed that "Jerome
Bibuld was wrong to oppose apartheid in South Africa".

Today, of course, hardly anyone who ever supported or sympathized
with apartheid will admit it in public. Sometimes embarrassment
does catch up.

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.

I *already* have quoted Briarroot's *complete post* above.

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.

Jerome Bibuld has been about universally well-known at RGCM and RGCP
for his lifelong opposition to racism, including apartheid in South
Africa. Soon after I began reading rec.games.chess.misc, I became
aware that Mr. Bibuld had passionately opposed apartheid.

Briarroot has been reading and writing at rec.games.chess.misc for
much longer than I have. As I recall, Briarroot has written
comments about Mr. Bibuld's views on racism. How could Briarroot
have known what Mr. Bibuld believes about racism? Clearly,
Briarroot must have been reading what Mr. Bibuld has been writing
here about his opposition to racism, which include some posts
describing Mr. Bibuld's opposition to apartheid.

Now Briarroot seems to pretend that he was entirely ignorant of
Jerome Bibuld's very well-known opposition to apartheid.

--Nick

Briarroot exhibits some obsessive behaviour characteristic of a stalker.
Here's an excerpt from my previous post about him:

(Nick) wrote in message . com...
Briarroot wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
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.

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides,
the pig likes it."
--George Bernard Shaw

--Nick