Mark Houlsby (The Particularly Obtuse Twit) wrote:

Briarroot

You are being both rude and foolish.

Nick's Lickspittle speaks! LMAO

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Mark Houlsby wrote:
...
No doubt you consider his having insulted every Chinese person in the
world equally hilarious...

I doubt if *any* Chinese person actually felt insulted. It's you pathetic
nanny types who are fussing and fuming as if your skirts are on fire.

Here's the context of the dialogue above: Both Mark Houlsby and Briarroot were
referring to this comment in the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited' (2 June 2003)
by Tim Hanke, who wrote: "Bugger the Chinese..."

Hence, Briarroot "doubts" that "*any* (his emphasis) Chinese person" could
"feel insulted" by being told, "Bugger the Chinese" (Tim Hanke's comment).

For the record, many Chinese do understand what "bugger" means in English.

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:

"Ching Chong Chinaman went to milk a cow
Ching Chong Chinaman didn't know how
Ching Chong Chinaman pulled the wrong tit
Ching Chong Chinaman covered in ****."

'People of poor capacities are apt to be deluded by vulgar prejudices.'
--William Donaldson (The Life & Adventures of Sir Bartholomew Sapskull)

When Briarroot writes that he "doubts" that "*any* Chinese person" could "feel
insulted" by being told, "Bugger the Chinese", as usual for him, Briarroot
(who loves to run around here exclaiming "Observe the obvious!") seems very
sure of himself.

Hence, I propose an experiment to test Briarroot's confident hypothesis.
Briarroot should join a full-contact practice of English-speaking Chinese
martial arts experts. There Briarroot could strut in, quite confident in his
belief that not "*any* Chinese*" (his words) could "feel insulted" by being
told: "Bugger the Chinese." Then Briarroot should feel free to shout, over
and over, "Bugger the Chinese! Bugger the Chinese!", while inviting all the
Chinese to join in his laughter. "Isn't that deliciously humorous?", he might
tell them.

Briarroot has written that he prides himself on always being "thick-skinned"
and "broad-minded". How long would the "thick-skinned" Briarroot be able to
laugh? Afterward, would the "broad-minded" Briarroot be able to complain
that the Chinese responses to him were "oversensitive" without appearing
"oversensitive" himself about the Chinese responses?

Of course, given his consistent past refusals to do so here, Briarroot should
not be expected to admit that he could be wrong. In that case, I would agree
that his experiment should have little scientific validity until many trials
have corroborated its initial outcome. Hence, in the interests of scientific
research, Briarroot should visit as many Chinese martial arts practices as
possible in order to test whether his initial experience there after shouting,
"Bugger the Chinese! Bugger the Chinese!", would be replicated elsewhere.
Eventually, Briarroot might be able to say that the outcomes have become
conclusive, or perhaps Briarroot--conclusively--might not be able to say
anything more at all.

So I urge Briarroot to consider volunteering for this experiment. Some of
my Chinese friends might even offer a modest contribution on behalf of his
travel expenses to Chinese martial arts events, though not on behalf of his
potential medical bills. I shall await Briarroot's final report (or the
final report on Briarroot) with keen interest.

Of course, like most other racist bullies, Briarroot seems to be a coward,
who would hardly risk facing the personal consequences of his vile racism.

'The man who is a bigot and yet disclaims infallibility is a contradiction
to himself.'
--Mary Collyer (Felicia to Charlotte)

--Nick

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Pathetic Pedantic Twit) wrote:
Briarroot wrote in message ...
Mark Houlsby wrote: ...
No doubt you consider his having insulted every Chinese person in the
world equally hilarious...

I doubt if *any* Chinese person actually felt insulted. It's you pathetic
nanny types who are fussing and fuming as if your skirts are on fire.

Here's the context of the dialogue above: Both Mark Houlsby and Briarroot
were referring to this comment in the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited'
(2 June 2003) by Tim Hanke, who wrote: "Bugger the Chinese..."

Aren't you getting a little tired of riding this hobby-horse?
These threads would have died out long ago except for your continuing
need to dredge up some shred to prop up of your flyblown ego.
What you are doing is nothing more than public masturbation.

Unlike Briarroot, evidently, I have a busy schedule full of better things to
do than to reply *immediately* to every post here, even including some posts
that are ad hominem attacks against me. And I have not responded in some time
while Briarroot has pursued his ad hominem sniping at me in various threads.

Briarroot has revelled in expressing his racism here, and he seems to enjoy
every aspect of his racism (there's a record of his exclaiming "LOL" and the
like about racist "humor") except one: Briarroot seems to resent being held
responsible for his racism and being identified publicly as a racist.

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. In addition, I have referred *only*
to Briarroot's posts that were written under my observation in 2003; so far,
I have *not* attempted to refer to any of Briarroot's older posts.

Apparently, Briarroot would like to invoke a rhetorical statute of limitations
perhaps to the effect of: "You are not allowed to write today that my post of
last week was racist because I wrote it last week! Now it's too late; I claim
perpetual immunity from any further criticism."

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.

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."

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.

On the other hand, as far as I know (not having read every one of his posts),
Briarroot seems too insecure to admit that he could ever be wrong, let alone
to thank anyone for correcting his errors or disproving his assertions here.

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!"

Hence, Briarroot "doubts" that "*any* (his emphasis) Chinese person" could
"feel insulted" by being told, "Bugger the Chinese" (Tim Hanke's comment).

For the record, many Chinese do understand what "bugger" means in English.

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.

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

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."

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".

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!"

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).

(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.

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".)

For the record, Briarroot, *not* me, characterises the following chant as a
"little school yard ditty" (I consider it racist and offensive):

"Ching Chong Chinaman went to milk a cow
Ching Chong Chinaman didn't know how
Ching Chong Chinaman pulled the wrong tit
Ching Chong Chinaman covered in ****."

Why did Briarroot choose the innocent expression, "little school yard ditty",
to describe that racist chant? Did he regard it as just "harmless fun"?
Given his evident refusal to regard the explicit comment, "Bugger the Chinese",
as offensive in any way, it's plausible to infer that Briarroot also might
be amused by his "little school yard ditty".

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.

As for Briarroot's continuing claim that it's "been shown to both old and
British in origin", he has so far provided *no evidence* to support that claim.
(Apparently, Briarroot feels that it's good enough for him to repeat himself,
saying, in effect, "It must be true because I say so! I am Briarroot!")
Actually, as I recall, that racist chant was mentioned in a website on
*contemporary American* playground chants.

Even *if* it were "British in origin" (and I have *no* reason to believe that
yet), that would *not* excuse those American youngsters who, of their own
volition, might continue to use it to hurt their ethnic Chinese schoolmates.
The responsibility for using (or misusing) a tool belongs to the one who
uses it, not to the one who might have made it long ago.

What a load of nonsense. Your continuing posts on a subject,
which has long died of it's own inertia, point to a personality
disorder, and tend only to reveal more of your own character flaws.

Unlike Briarroot, evidently, I have a busy schedule full of better things to
do than to reply *immediately* to every post. Evidently, Briarroot is hoping
that more readers will forget his record of offensive racist posts here.

Some of my Chinese friends...

I doubt very much if you have *any* friends at all, let alone any Chinese
friends. Your continued claims that you have these mysterious friends
(seemingly of every nationality on the planet!) only reinforces my
conviction that you are a liar.

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).

Of course, like most other racist bullies, Briarroot seems to be a coward,
who would hardly risk facing the personal consequences of his vile racism.

What racism?

Briarroot has an ample record of racist comments in his posts here.
Indeed, on account of his many racist comments, Briarroot already has been
explicitly called a "racist" by at least, as far as I know, four persons he
Jerome Bibuld, Mark Houlsby, Goran Tomic, and I. And other persons have
expressed a similar sentiment about Briarroot in more euphemistic terms.

What bullying?

Briarroot also has an ample record of vulgar offensive name-calling here,
which is a tactic characteristic of a bully. 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.

And who has been offended, other than a load of politically correct,
nanny state, bleeding hearts, like yourself and your lickspittle, Houlsby?

Hence, for the record, does Briarroot really contend that the comment,
"Bugger the Chinese", *should not offend* anyone else, including any Chinese
person?

A pair whose only contribution to public decency seems to be carrying on
with a lengthy and thoroughly banal argument on an obscure Usenet newsgroup.
I consider it my public duty to ridicule your pathetic attempts to smugly
applaud yourselves.

I cannot speak here for Mark Houlsby, but other readers have spoken about me.
Here are some comments on my posts here from a broad variety of readers:

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

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." (for one of my posts in thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited')

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 to enjoy his (my) scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."

Of course, I don't expect any reader to agree with my posts 100% of the time.
Yet my impression is that my posts are more respected than Briarroot's by the
more thoughtful readers here.

--Nick

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Pedantic Twit) wrote:
"Tim Hanke" wrote in message t.net...
"Nick" wrote ...
...
"I ask you this Bwana Nick, have you ever eaten pygmy?
StanB"

That quotation is indubitably 100% authentic StanB.
--Nick

Let the record show that Bwana Nick does not deny eating pygmy.
...
Tim Hanke

Ludicrous racist accusations warrant no response beyond disdain.
Only racists would believe that those accusations could be true,
and those racists would not be convinced by any denials of them.

Only a pedantic twit would call these gibes "accusations."
And only someone with a massive ego problem would not have
laughed off this **** and moved on, weeks ago.

Unlike Briarroot, evidently, I have a busy schedule full of better things to
do than to reply *immediately* to every post here.

Here's the complete context of the "discussion" about me among
StanB, Tim Hanke, and Briarroot in this thread:

On 25 May 2003, StanB wrote to me (his complete original post, quotes snipped):
"I ask you this Bwana Nick, have you ever eaten pygmy?
StanB"

On 9 June 2003, Tim Hanke wrote to me (his complete original post, link snipped)
"Let the record show that Bwana Nick does not deny eating pygmy.
Tim Hanke"

On 10 June 2003, Briarroot wrote (his complete original post, link snipped):
"The only remaining question is: does Nick prefer boiled, baked or barbecued
pygmy? LMAO"

It should be noted that Briarroot now has admitted contributing "this ****"
to rec.games.chess.misc. It should also be noted that Briarroot regards
"this ****" as hilarious (e.g. "LMAO", "laughed off").

On 11 May 2003 in the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited', Briarroot wrote:
"Well I may be completely wrong, what does it matter?"

Briarroot seems to have admitted to a lack of standards in writing his posts.
That admission might imply that Briarroot intends to keep writing "this ****"
to rec.games.chess.misc, even though everyone else may agree that he is (and
has been) "completely wrong". But "what does it matter" to Briarroot?

As someone else here put it, Briarroot is "beneath human dispute".

--Nick

Nick wrote:
Briarroot wrote in message
...
Nick (The Pathetic Pedantic Twit) wrote:
Briarroot wrote in message
...
Mark Houlsby wrote: ...
No doubt you consider his having insulted every
Chinese person in the
world equally hilarious...

I doubt if *any* Chinese person actually felt insulted.
It's you pathetic
nanny types who are fussing and fuming as if your
skirts are on fire.

Here's the context of the dialogue above: Both Mark
Houlsby and Briarroot
were referring to this comment in the thread, 'Zhang
Zhong revisited'
(2 June 2003) by Tim Hanke, who wrote: "Bugger the Chinese..."

Aren't you getting a little tired of riding this hobby-horse?
These threads would have died out long ago except for
your continuing
need to dredge up some shred to prop up of your flyblown ego.
What you are doing is nothing more than public masturbation.

Unlike Briarroot, evidently, I have a busy schedule full
of better things to
do than to reply *immediately* to every post here, even
including some posts
that are ad hominem attacks against me. And I have not
responded in some time
while Briarroot has pursued his ad hominem sniping at me
in various threads.

Briarroot has revelled in expressing his racism here, and
he seems to enjoy
every aspect of his racism (there's a record of his
exclaiming "LOL" and the
like about racist "humor") except one: Briarroot seems to
resent being held
responsible for his racism and being identified publicly as a racist.

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. In addition, I
have referred *only*
to Briarroot's posts that were written under my
observation in 2003; so far,
I have *not* attempted to refer to any of Briarroot's older posts.

Apparently, Briarroot would like to invoke a rhetorical
statute of limitations
perhaps to the effect of: "You are not allowed to write
today that my post of
last week was racist because I wrote it last week! Now
it's too late; I claim
perpetual immunity from any further criticism."

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.

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."

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.

On the other hand, as far as I know (not having read every
one of his posts),
Briarroot seems too insecure to admit that he could ever
be wrong, let alone
to thank anyone for correcting his errors or disproving
his assertions here.

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!"

Hence, Briarroot "doubts" that "*any* (his emphasis)
Chinese person" could
"feel insulted" by being told, "Bugger the Chinese" (Tim
Hanke's comment).

For the record, many Chinese do understand what "bugger"
means in English.

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.

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

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."

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".

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!"

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).

(If it's necessary, perhaps someone else can add a link to
my post there.)


http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2D941035

snip
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.chess.misc

Nick wrote:

snip

As someone else here put it, Briarroot is "beneath human dispute".

--Nick

I believe that that was bridgeplayer & fellow hand wringer ( I know my
racists ) J. Bilgeburp..

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Mark Houlsby (The Particularly Obtuse Twit) wrote:

Briarroot

You are being both rude and foolish.

Nick's Lickspittle speaks! LMAO

With his characteristic "snip and sneer" method, Briarroot has a
record of distorting other people's posts at rec.games.chess.misc,
and he has done that again here.

Briarroot has *distorted* Mark Houlsby's post by snipping it out of
context to make it appear--falsely--that Mark Houlsby originally
wrote to Briarroot: "You are being both rude and foolish."

In fact, Mark Houlsby's original post (to which Briarroot was
"responding") makes it clear that John Macnab originally wrote
(3 May 2003) to Briarroot: "You are being both rude and foolish."

So whom was Briarroot attacking when he wrote, "Nick's Lickspittle
speaks!", Mark Houlsby or John Macnab?

--Nick

Nick wrote:

Unlike Briarroot, evidently, I have a busy schedule full of better
things to do than to reply *immediately* to every post here, even
including some posts that are ad hominem attacks against me. And
I have not responded in some time while Briarroot has pursued his
ad hominem sniping at me in various threads.

What a load! You have even posted 'corrections' to your own
inane ramblings.

Briarroot has revelled in expressing his racism here, and he seems
to enjoy every aspect of his racism (there's a record of his
exclaiming "LOL" and the like about racist "humor") except one:
Briarroot seems to resent being held responsible for his racism
and being identified publicly as a racist.

Nick, you twister. You are the one who is crying racism, (other
than that perennial nutjob, Bibuld) while deliberately overlooking
that I have been laughing at *you*, and making fun of *your* silly
attempts at self-justification, not making fun of any particular
race or nationality. It is all about you, Nick; the Pathetic
Pedantic Twit. It is *your* habit of feigning to be offended, and
pretending not to understand the logic of your opponents that I am
pointing at.

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. In
addition, I have referred *only* to Briarroot's posts that were
written under my observation in 2003; so far, I have *not*
attempted to refer to any of Briarroot's older posts.

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


Apparently, Briarroot would like to invoke a rhetorical statute of
limitations perhaps to the effect of: "You are not allowed to write
today that my post of last week was racist because I wrote it last
week! Now it's too late; I claim perpetual immunity from any further
criticism."

I'm not a racist just because you say I am, that charge is merely
one example of your attempts at prevarication. My poking fun at
your public breast beating, have nothing whatsoever to do with
racism.


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? Clearly you find it tolerable to sling the insults,
but not to receive them. Recognize yourself!

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.
You seem to think yours are. Hence the source of my mirth at your
continuing pontification. You are afraid to just let things lie
as they are, you must (for reasons best left to psychoanylists) keep
on propping yourself up, while, if we are to take your posts at face
value, no further defense is necessary.

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.


On the other hand, as far as I know (not having read every one of
his posts), Briarroot seems too insecure to admit that he could
ever be wrong, let alone to thank anyone for correcting his errors
or disproving his assertions here.

ROTFLMAO

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.

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

[Nick wrote:
[
[
[ 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.


Hence, Briarroot "doubts" that "*any* (his emphasis) Chinese person"
could
"feel insulted" by being told, "Bugger the Chinese" (Tim Hanke's
comment).

For the record, many Chinese do understand what "bugger" means in
English.

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. 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. You've offered no proof whatsoever that anyone
was offended by the "Bugger the Chinese" remark, why should I be
held to a higher standard of evidence than yourself?

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


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. 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.?

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. 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"

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.

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.


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.


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?


(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.


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
How accurate that is, I've know way of knowing. Another page also
spoke of hearing it in Australia. Yet another page told of a
Japanese-American who used the phrase "Ching Chong Chinaman" during
his childhood.


For the record, Briarroot, *not* me, characterises the following chant as a
"little school yard ditty" (I consider it racist and offensive):

"Ching Chong Chinaman went to milk a cow
Ching Chong Chinaman didn't know how
Ching Chong Chinaman pulled the wrong tit
Ching Chong Chinaman covered in ****."

You keep repeating this. chuckle If I were to use your pathetic
logic, I would say that *you* are the racist since you seem to enjoy
reposting this. And of course, it's a schoolyard ditty, do you think
adults go around spouting such silly rhymes? I don't know (or care all
that much) about schoolyards in your homeland, but here in the USA, any
child singing such crap would be ostracized; not because of the blatant
racism, but because of the absolute silliness of the subject matter.
In American schoolyards today, if it ain't rap, it's crap. Do you
really think that contemporary American kids even know how cows are
milked? You are truly an idiot of the first magnitude!

Why did Briarroot choose the innocent expression, "little school yard
ditty", to describe that racist chant? Did he regard it as just
"harmless fun"?

I just explained my reasoning. However, if I were employ your favored
methodology, I would ask: Does Nick keep repeating this outrageously
racist ditty because he is himself, a racist?


Given his evident refusal to regard the explicit comment, "Bugger
the Chinese", as offensive in any way, it's plausible to infer that
Briarroot also might be amused by his "little school yard ditty".

LOL The one is as archaic and foolish as the other. Only in your
mind, Nick, has there been anything amiss. You are truly twisted.


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.


As for Briarroot's continuing claim that it's "been shown to both old and
British in origin", he has so far provided *no evidence* to support that
claim. (Apparently, Briarroot feels that it's good enough for him to repeat
himself, saying, in effect, "It must be true because I say so! I am Briarroot!")
Actually, as I recall, that racist chant was mentioned in a website on
*contemporary American* playground chants.

LOL You must be from the planet Venus if you think *anything* like
this is heard on any American playground! Btw, it is you who have
now repeated yourself in the same post. What a weasel!


Even *if* it were "British in origin" (and I have *no* reason to believe
that yet), that would *not* excuse those American youngsters who, of their
own volition, might continue to use it to hurt their ethnic Chinese
schoolmates. The responsibility for using (or misusing) a tool belongs to
the one who uses it, not to the one who might have made it long ago.

And it gives you great pleasure to point out the failings of
American schoolchildren, doesn't it?

What a load of nonsense. Your continuing posts on a subject,
which has long died of it's own inertia, point to a personality
disorder, and tend only to reveal more of your own character flaws.

Unlike Briarroot, evidently, I have a busy schedule full of better things to
do than to reply *immediately* to every post. Evidently, Briarroot is
hoping that more readers will forget his record of offensive racist posts here.

What a load of crap. These threads are the high point of your bleak
existence. Come on, admit it!

Some of my Chinese friends...

I doubt very much if you have *any* friends at all, let alone any Chinese
friends. Your continued claims that you have these mysterious friends
(seemingly of every nationality on the planet!) only reinforces my
conviction that you are a liar.

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!

Of course, like most other racist bullies, Briarroot seems to be a
coward,
who would hardly risk facing the personal consequences of his vile
racism.

What racism?

Briarroot has an ample record of racist comments in his posts here.
Indeed, on account of his many racist comments, Briarroot already has been
explicitly called a "racist" by at least, as far as I know, four persons
he Jerome Bibuld, Mark Houlsby, Goran Tomic, and I. And other persons have
expressed a similar sentiment about Briarroot in more euphemistic terms.

LOL How pathetic! You critcize me above for thinking that my
opinions have more validity than your own, yet here you assume
exactly the same stance, expecting immunity! A remarkable
display of duplicity. As for those persons that you have just
cited, I must laughingly point out that that they are not persons
whose opinions are widely respected here on r.g.c.m. Not that this
is any condemnation mind you, but more specifically: Bibuld is
rather a laughingstock around here for his views which apparently
envision the whole of the USA as being fascist, (meaning anyone
whose politics are slightly to the right of Karl Marx) and anyone
who does not bow down and worship before a portrait of Nelson Mandela,
he calls a racist; Houlsby is apparently your lickspittle who worships
at your feet, hardly a non partisan voice; Tomic is a newcomeer here,
and though he has only been posting a short while he has already
established himself as being completely irrational. This is hardly
a crew who I would want on my side in an argument!


What bullying?

Briarroot also has an ample record of vulgar offensive name-calling here,
which is a tactic characteristic of a bully.

Nonsense! And what better example of bullying can there be than
yourself, who labels those who disagree with his openly anti-
American views, and those who disagree with his politically correct
nannying as racists and bullies?

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. I don't recall what PJ said, but John McNab is the only one
whose opinion, (though I continue to disagree with him), I have
respect for. Why, you may ask? Because he had the courtesy to allow
me to hold my opinions, without trying, as you have done, to pillory
me as a racist or a bully. Mr. McNab simply stated his opinion,
recieved my response and left things as they were, though he did
correctly remark upon my rudeness and crudeness. That is the mark
of a respectable gentleman. You, by way of contrast, are a sick
individual. That last sentence is me Observing the Obvious.

And further, if it is so clear that I such an offensive oaf, whose
views are unworthy of discussion, why are you so intent on answering
me? Could it be that you don't believe your own rhetoric? Could it
be that you know yourself better than you care to admit, and that
you *need* to keep up this pretense at moral and intellectual
superiority over an 'offensive name caller' such as myself. Your
actions belie your words!


And who has been offended, other than a load of politically correct,
nanny state, bleeding hearts, like yourself and your lickspittle, Houlsby?

Hence, for the record, does Briarroot really contend that the comment,
"Bugger the Chinese", *should not offend* anyone else, including any Chinese
person?

Taken out of proper context, the word 'hello' can be offensive.
What I maintain is that the use made of the phrase was aimed at
you, not at the Chinese. It was aimed at inflaming you, which
it has so OBVIOUSLY done.


A pair whose only contribution to public decency seems to be carrying on
with a lengthy and thoroughly banal argument on an obscure Usenet
newsgroup.
I consider it my public duty to ridicule your pathetic attempts to smugly
applaud yourselves.

I cannot speak here for Mark Houlsby, but other readers have spoken about
me. Here are some comments on my posts here from a broad variety of readers:

ROFL Truth is not democratic. It cannot be voted upon.

[snip]

Of course, I don't expect any reader to agree with my posts 100% of the
time. Yet my impression is that my posts are more respected than Briarroot's
by the more thoughtful readers here.

On the other hand, I have received several email messages supporting
me in my continuing efforts to expose you for the charlatan that your
are. These readers, for whatever reasons, don't wish to make their
views public. While it's possible they don't wish to be bullied by
you and labeled racists, it doesn't really matter why they have
chosen to remain unheard. As I say, truth is not democratic.

Nick wrote:

Briarroot wrote in message
...
Nick (The Pedantic Twit) wrote:
"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
t.net...
"Nick" wrote .

Ludicrous racist accusations warrant no response beyond disdain.
Only racists would believe that those accusations could be true,
and those racists would not be convinced by any denials of them.

Only a pedantic twit would call these gibes "accusations."
And only someone with a massive ego problem would not have
laughed off this **** and moved on, weeks ago.

Unlike Briarroot, evidently, I have a busy schedule full of better things to
do than to reply *immediately* to every post here.

So you say. Yet you seem to have time to make inane 'corrections'
to your own posts weeks after they originally appeared, as if they
were somehow important in the grand scheme of things. You must be
a legend in your own mind. I find you pathetic.

Here's the complete context of the "discussion" about me among
StanB, Tim Hanke, and Briarroot in this thread:

On 25 May 2003, StanB wrote to me (his complete original post, quotes
snipped):
"I ask you this Bwana Nick, have you ever eaten pygmy?
StanB"

On 9 June 2003, Tim Hanke wrote to me (his complete original post, link
snipped)
"Let the record show that Bwana Nick does not deny eating pygmy.
Tim Hanke"

On 10 June 2003, Briarroot wrote (his complete original post, link snipped):
"The only remaining question is: does Nick prefer boiled, baked or barbecued
pygmy? LMAO"

How can you deny this was a jibe against you? There is no implied
racism here, just a clearly stated lack of respect for you.


It should be noted that Briarroot now has admitted contributing "this ****"
to rec.games.chess.misc. It should also be noted that Briarroot regards
"this ****" as hilarious (e.g. "LMAO", "laughed off").

No sane person would take this stuff as seriously as you seem to.


On 11 May 2003 in the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited', Briarroot wrote:
"Well I may be completely wrong, what does it matter?"

Oh-ho! Aren't you the one always complaining that I snip the relevant
portions of posts when replying. I see you have no scruples in this
regard. You are clearly prevaricating here since you are fully aware
that this is taken out of context, but that is your habit, isn't it?
You are a liar and a phony, who attempts to appear as an intellectual
but whose standards of proof and logic are really tilted in favor of
your own tired arguments.

The proper context of the above statement was in Mark Houlsby's and
my attempt to determine your home country (something you wish to keep
hidden). I was speculating that you were from Europe, but admitted
that it didn't matter, because where ever you are from, I am sure
that your homeland's history of racism, brutality and naked aggression
is little different from America's.


Briarroot seems to have admitted to a lack of standards in writing his
posts.
That admission might imply that Briarroot intends to keep writing "this
****"
to rec.games.chess.misc, even though everyone else may agree that he is (and
has been) "completely wrong". But "what does it matter" to Briarroot?

Most other people reading that post, would take me to mean that the
thread is pointless except as an arena for our personal slagging match.
But, as you continue to demonstrate, you are unable to Observe the
Obvious.

As someone else here put it, Briarroot is "beneath human dispute".

Which is bad grammar. Perhaps he meant that 'Briarroot is beneath
human contempt' which would only be redundant; or perhaps he meant
that 'Briarroot is not worth disputing with' which would merely be
irrelevant, as you keep proving.

Nick wrote:

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Mark Houlsby (The Particularly Obtuse Twit) wrote:

Briarroot

You are being both rude and foolish.

Nick's Lickspittle speaks! LMAO

With his characteristic "snip and sneer" method, Briarroot has a
record of distorting other people's posts at rec.games.chess.misc,
and he has done that again here.

Briarroot has *distorted* Mark Houlsby's post by snipping it out of
context to make it appear--falsely--that Mark Houlsby originally
wrote to Briarroot: "You are being both rude and foolish."

In fact, Mark Houlsby's original post (to which Briarroot was
"responding") makes it clear that John Macnab originally wrote
(3 May 2003) to Briarroot: "You are being both rude and foolish."

So whom was Briarroot attacking when he wrote, "Nick's Lickspittle
speaks!", Mark Houlsby or John Macnab?

Which is in no way, shape, or form relevant to my response.
And Nick, you aren't going to pretend that you don't employ
the very methods you are here decrying? I just posted a
response, a few minutes ago, to another one of your boring
attempts to 'set the record straight' in which I caught you,
and proved, that this is in fact your own common method of
discourse. I would call this a case of the pot calling the
kettle black, but then I might be branded a racist. Oh horrors!
Too late.