Nick wrote:

Briarroot wrote in message
...
Tim Hanke wrote:
"Nick" wrote ...

StanB 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

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.

ROTFLMAO

By that logic, anyone who didn't support GW Bush's invasion of Iraq
was a supporter of Saddam Hussein. I don't think that'll wash, Nicky.

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. Only an arch prevaricator would even attempt this
idiotic connection; though this is another typical example of your
'reasoning' in labeling me a racist and bully.
You've dished yourself yet again.

This is a repost of my original post of 8 July 2003, which was lost by Google.
I have been informed by the Google people that they had a technical problem
that caused my original post not to show up on my newsreader and not to be
saved in the Google archives. I have had the same problem with other posts.

NoMoreChess *already* has responded elsewhere in this thread to my original
post of 8 July 2003, and I shall respond to NoMoreChess there accordingly.
So it's unnecessary for NoMoreChess to respond to this repost here.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
Nick, if you think that Eastern martial arts experts can quite easily take on
and defeat an American, then you must have missed some of the following
contradictory movies:

For the record, I *never* wrote that, and I do *not* believe that.
Instead, I believe that expertise in martial arts, as in chess, can be
equally gained by persons of any nationality or race: gens una sumus.
What's relevant is comparing the skills of the *individuals* competing.

...Clearly, even *half-Americans* are not afraid of the Chinese!

NoMoreChess's assertion about a "half-American" (who's also a "half-Chinese")
seems to have a distasteful insinuation. gens una sumus

Remenber the movie in which the Chinese Bruce Lee...

In fact, Bruce Lee was born of Chinese parents in the United States in 1940,
which made him a U.S. citizen by birth. On the other hand, most Americans
(like NoMoreChess, apparently) tended to perceive Bruce Lee only as Chinese
throughout his life in the United States.

This all seems to be blown way, way out of proportion. Someone suggested
that the USCF should change the way they handle player names to better suit
the Chinese, and then came the "insensitive" reply, bugger the Chinese --
next thing you know, you'll want us to adopt their calendar, as well, etc.

For the record, Bill Smythe made that suggestion, and then Tim Hanke wrote:
"Bugger the Chinese..." Does NoMoreChess care to dispute that Hanke's reply
was "insensitive"?

To me, this was a rejection of adapting things to suit one special interest
(here, the Chinese, whose foreign names are not formatted the same as ours).
Granted, this particular "minority group," or special interest, is gigantic,
if looked at from an *international* perspective.

This is similar to rejecting the use of the Chinese calendar in place of our
own, purely AMERICAN calendar (Tiu'sday, Woden'sday, Thor'sday, Frigga'sday,
Saturn'sday, Sun-day, Moonday). To try and turn such a rejection into an
attack upon the Chinese by "extracting" racism, is rather desperate.

NoMoreChess utterly misunderstands what I have been writing about lately.

Actually, my latest posts with regard to Briarroot have referred to his
apparent implied defence of Tim Hanke's comment, "Bugger the Chinese", as
being *not* (Briarroot wrote that he "doubts" it) offensive to "*any*
Chinese" (Briarroot's words).

Does NoMoreChess regard the expression, "Bugger the Chinese", as intrinsically
non-racist and inoffensive to everyone? That's a question for the record.

You are stooping to puerille name-calling, when you toss out words like
"bigot," "coward," and "bully," among many others....

In my previous posts, I have provided evidence to support my contention,
which is shared by other people here, that Briarroot is a "racist".

I doubt that NoMoreChess has carefully read and accurately remembered
everything that I have written about Briarroot with regard to this point.
Or perhaps he prefers *not* to read all the evidence before he jumps to
his conclusions. Other people here have written similar complaints about
NoMoreChess.

Moreover, unlike many other readers here, NoMoreChess seems to have overlooked
Briarroot's record of frequent vulgar name-calling here as well as Briarroot's
open admission that he intends to "insult" other people, including me.

You pretend to be defending the poor, hapless Chinese, who are supposed to
be "victimized" by the particular phrasing of a rejection of one idea. But
it is a very thinly veiled pretense.

Actually, I also am defending what I believe should be some standards of civil
discussion he one should *not* feel free to use offensive language such as
"Bugger the Chinese" (Tim Hanke's expression) and be immune from criticism.

Does NoMoreChess believe that it's acceptable to use any anti-Chinese slur
whatsoever here? That's a question for the record.

In the huge thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited", this dispute began between
Briarroot and me and some other persons on my side (Jerome Bibuld, Mark
Houlsby, and John Macnab) in general. The thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited",
has grown by now to nearly 300 posts. I doubt that NoMoreChess has carefully
read and accurately remembered the many posts therein that would be relevant
to understanding all the issues of this dispute. And, evidently, given the
ignorant and misinformed premises of his post to me, NoMoreChess does *not*
really understand all the issues of this dispute.

By the way, in the thread, "OT: Civility" (28 May 2003), NoMoreChess wrote
an inane post in response to me, evidently based on his severe misunderstanding
that my post to him was intended to disagree entirely with him. In fact,
my post to him began by saying, "I would *agree*..." (with NoMoreChess), but
NoMoreChess seems to have read it too carelessly to have understood that.
Also, in his "response" to me, NoMoreChess seemed to assume that I was fully
writing on behalf of Mark Houlsby (or, perhaps, even that I *was* Mark Houlsby!)
In fact, I did *not* fully agree with what Mark Houlsby had written to
NoMoreChess.

In the past, several other people here, as far as I can recall, also have
criticised NoMoreChess for not reading their posts carefully enough and for
writing his mistaken responses that were based on serious misunderstandings
of what they had written. NoMoreChess's post to which I am responding now
is another of those examples.

(originally posted on 8 July 2003 but lost from the Google archives)

--Nick

My original post of 8 July 2003 in this thread (to which NoMoreChess has
responded: I am responding to NoMoreChess's response here) was lost from
the Google archives due to a technical problem. I have just reposted my
original post of 8 July 2003 elsewhere in this thread (7 August 2003).

I intend to quote from my original post in my response here, especially
because NoMoreChess tends to snip and distort my posts.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
Nick, if you think that Eastern martial arts experts can quite easily take
on and defeat an American, then you must have missed some of the following
contradictory movies:

For the record, I *never* wrote that, and I do *not* believe that.

What I meant was that "Eastern martial arts experts* cannot *necessarily*
"quite easily take on and defeat an American" of comparable martial arts
expertise.

Then you must have also missed "Enter the Dragon," which, along with other
movies, clearly proved that Bruce Lee (of Chinese decent AND training) could
beat anyone -- up until recently that is, when martial artists began to fight
weightlessly in treetops, and run straight up walls using newly discovered
anti-gravity techniques! Still, many regard Bruce Lee as the greatest
(full-gravity) martial artist ever.

NoMoreChess tends to cite what he sees in films as "evidence" for what he
concludes about real life.

Instead, I believe that expertise in martial arts, as in chess, can be
equally gained by persons of any nationality or race

Nonsense. Americans are fat, lazy, undisciplined, couch potatoes. This
gives certain others a decided edge. Especially those people from countries
which don't yet have cable TV, microwave popcorn, potato chips, and beer!

That's NoMoreChess's opinion, not mine.

NoMoreChess's assertion about a "half-American" (who's also a "half-Chinese")
seems to have a distasteful insinuation.

You are just mad because your style of fighting lost. Try a REAL style,
next time.
Stop all the horsing around with drunken style, monkey style, and so forth.

Given that NoMoreChess never has seen me, how could he know what's my
favourite style in martial arts?

Of course he was half-Chinese. How else could Kane have gotten trained as a
Budhist monk? Those dragons on his forearms were NOT mere tatoos, you know.

For the record, some Buddhist monks are not of Chinese heritage.

In fact, Bruce Lee was born of Chinese parents in the United States in 1940,
which made him a U.S. citizen by birth.

But he was not given the starring role in "Kung Fu" because he looked -- and
I quote: "too oriental."
He also had a very strong foreign accent in several movies, an accent he
aquired by growing up in -- you guessed it -- China!

Actually, Bruce Lee (1940-1973) grew up in Hong Kong, which was not legally
regarded as part of China until 1 July 1997.

So this business about people here "tending to perceive" Bruce as Chinese is
rather dishonest. He grew up in China! This helped his movie career -- in
China, but hindered it here in the USA....

NoMoreChess has snipped and distorted what I wrote in my original post:
"In fact, Bruce Lee was born of Chinese parents in the United States in 1940,
which made him a U.S. citizen by birth. On the other hand, most Americans
(like NoMoreChess, apparently) tended to perceive Bruce Lee *only as Chinese*
throughout his life in the United States."

In my view, it's natural that most Americans evidently did perceive Bruce Lee
as Chinese, but it's not appropriate for them to perceive him "*only* as
Chinese". Bruce Lee also was a "United Statesian" by birth, as were his
wife and children.

I doubt the results would be very meaningful, for American "humor," such that
it is, is quite beyond the grasp of people from many other cultures....

Here's an example of NoMoreChess's sense of "humor" from the thread,
"There has got to be a great punchline to the original subject" (9 July 2003):

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G2EF21675

Apparently, NoMoreChess was making a "joke" about how to rape a woman.

In my previous posts, I have provided evidence to support my contention,

NoMoreChess snipped my next sentence, which identifies "my contention".
Here's what I wrote: "...my contention, which is shared by other people here,
that Briarroot is a 'racist'."

You cannot even begin to prove here, the sort of charges you have tossed out,
for to have the slightest inkling you would need to know somebody
*personally.* That is, unless you are merely talking about somebody's online
persona, which is a different matter altogether.

Of course, I am referring to Briarroot's "online persona".
I don't know "Briarroot" in person; I don't even know his real name.
And I have no interest whatsoever in knowing anything about Briarroot's
personal life, career, or circumstances. As far as I am concerned in
writing here, "Briarroot" is represented only by what he writes here.
And Briarroot has quite a record of writing racist comments here.

On the other hand, "Briarroot" has been demanding that I reveal personal
information to him. And Briarroot has written at some length about how
he has obsessively speculated about my personal identity and "homeland".

Perhaps (I don't know this; I am hypothesizing) NoMoreChess believes that
Usenet is completely segregated from the "real world" and consequently that
*none* of the social conventions and norms of "real life" need apply here.

As far as I can infer from Briarroot's habitual vulgar name-calling here,
that absolutely societally detached view of Usenet behaviour--"anything
goes"--seems to be ardently embraced by Briarroot. According to that view
of Usenet, someone (such as Briarroot) may revel in making racist comments
here, yet no adverse inference (such as that he's a racist) should be drawn
against his character in real life, supposedly because "Usenet is not real
life". Perhaps one (such as Briarroot) might go even further and argue that
expressing racism is acceptable on Usenet and that criticising racism on Usenet
is unacceptable because it's supposedly "politically correct".

But what kind of person would enjoy revelling in making racist comments here?
Why would a person enjoy making racist comments here if it does not reflect
at least some racism within that person, some racism that remains within that
person whether he or she is expressing oneself online or in "real life"?
In my view, the only persons who would enjoy revelling in making racist
comments here are almost certainly also racists in real life or mentally
disturbed, apart from those aiming only to shock and provoke other people.

The Internet is an artificial medium of communication, yet Usenet users
do form a kind of amorphous comunity.

NoMoreChess seems to have overlooked Briarroot's record of frequent vulgar
name-calling here

NoMoreChess snipped the rest of my sentence, which follows he
"...name-calling here as well as Briarroot's open admission that he intends
to 'insult' other people, including me."

Wrong. I am fully aware that certain posters here have a tendency to steer
for the gutter. Stan Booz, for example. The difference is that I don't feel
the need to resort to name-calling (coward, racist, bully, etc., etc.), and in
fact, I am not offended by this sort of thing. It bothers me only because I
suspect there are myriad innocent women and children, silently lurking about.

And does NoMoreChess expect those "innocent women and children" to appreciate
his apparent "joke" here about how to rape a woman?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G2EF21675

NoMoreChess's other offensive nonsense here does not warrant any response
from me beyond disdain. As far as I know, at least several other persons
here already have expressed similar opinions of NoMoreChess, who routinely
heavily snips and distorts posts and then makes dishonest claims about them.

Here's an example of how NoMoreChess attempted to distort a solitary typo
in one of my posts into an alleged proof that I must be a worthless chess
analyst, who perhaps does not even know how to make legal moves consistently:

My response in the thread, "Is 1 e4 e6 now the Freedom Defense?" (12 July 2003)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20012775

In the thread, "Why do some people play 1 d4 or 1 c4???" (5 July 2003),
Southpaw wrote this about NoMoreChess: "...Knowing nothing about me, you
still feel qualified to make large assumptions. Have a nice life."

In the thread, "Mig Migged" (9 July 2003), Ed Seedhouse wrote:
"NoMoreChess's main hobby seems to be putting words into other people's mouths.
Of course, the rational among us will observe that I never made any such
conclusion, but I'm sure that NoMoreChess won't let that stop him."

In the thread, "Matthew Sadler loved the book" (18 July 2003),
John Macnab wrote to NoMoreChess, who kept calling him, "Mr. McBad":
"I'm not sure if I was unclear, or if you have trouble reading, or if you
are an adolescent trolling for a flame war...."
In his response, NoMoreChess continued to address him as "Mr. McBad".

And NoMoreChess has tended to dismiss any criticisms of himself as being
purely "ad hominem".

"There is no crime so dangerous, so detestable, as hypocrisy; it has the
complicated guilt of every crime that it conceals."
--Charles Jenner (The Placid Man)

--Nick

My original post of 8 July 2003 (to which Briarroot responded) was lost by
Google. I have been informed by the Google people that they had a technical
problem that caused my original post not to show up on my newsreader and not to
be saved in the Google archives. I have had the same problem with other posts.
In his response, Briarroot reproduced my original post, so I need not repost it.

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick wrote (8 July 2003, which has been lost by Google):
Briarroot wrote in message
...
Tim Hanke wrote:
"Nick" wrote ...

StanB 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

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.

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).

(snipped more invective from Briarroot)

"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 wrote:
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.

"Bwana" = African; "eating pygmy" = cannibalism and murder.
"Bwana...eating pygmy" = racist stereotype of Africans.

Tim Hanke, StanB, and Briarroot seem to enjoy "Bwana...eating pygmy" 'jokes'.

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

(snipped more invective from Briarroot)
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).

Actually, I doubt that Mark Houlsby was attempting "to determine (my) home
country". I doubt that he felt that he had any need to do that.

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.

That's characteristic Briarroot "logic": Briarroot admits that he does not
know something (the identity of my "homeland"), but he draws a definite
conclusion ("I am sure") about it anyway.

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.

In the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited" (12 May 2003), Jerome Bibuld wrote:
"Why waste you time and our bandwidth on these assholes? They ("Briarroot",
Hanke and their ilk) are incapable of hearing you, much less understanding you,
and even less of considering what you have said....
They are beneath human dispute."

--Nick

In the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited" (12 May 2003), Jerome Bibuld wrote:
"Why waste you time and our bandwidth on these assholes? They ("Briarroot",
Hanke and their ilk) are incapable of hearing you, much less understanding
you, and even less of considering what you have said....
They are beneath human dispute."



Apparently, Nick Bourbaki endorses this opinion, more or less, while proudly
announcing that its phrasing was "bad grammar." I don't agree. If what he
meant was that they were beneath human dispute, he said it well enough, if not
succintly. They should not be argued with, by those who turn up their arrogant
noses, in other words. By those (like Nick) who project racism onto their
"enemies." By those who choose to regard their unwanted critics as sub-human.


Yet Nick had no answer as to the stated question: why does he waste his time
and "our" bandwidth disputing or feuding with those he supposedly has convinced
himself are sub-human?



My position on this is that it is *his* time he wastes (not very wisely).

And as for bandwidth, I think we shall not yet squeeze out the folks over on
alt.cancer.find.the.cure. If it comes to that, I shall be the first to stop
posting here!
Just in case that were to happen, here is my brilliant draw with Louis Blair
from a Chicago Open, in which we were tied for 1st place (Class D):



HTML invalid script error
no such position
no such game
cannot find moves
invalid header
nobody would want to
see such a game anyhow



:server error -- insufficient bandwidth:
peration halted:

NoMoreChess wrote:

In the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited" (12 May 2003), Jerome Bibuld wrote:
"Why waste you time and our bandwidth on these assholes? They ("Briarroot",
Hanke and their ilk) are incapable of hearing you, much less understanding
you, and even less of considering what you have said....
They are beneath human dispute."

Apparently, Nick Bourbaki endorses this opinion, more or less, while proudly
announcing that its phrasing was "bad grammar." I don't agree. If what he
meant was that they were beneath human dispute, he said it well enough, if not
succintly. They should not be argued with, by those who turn up their arrogant
noses, in other words. By those (like Nick) who project racism onto their
"enemies." By those who choose to regard their unwanted critics as sub-human.

Yet Nick had no answer as to the stated question: why does he waste his time
and "our" bandwidth disputing or feuding with those he supposedly has convinced
himself are sub-human?

My position on this is that it is *his* time he wastes (not very wisely).

And as for bandwidth, I think we shall not yet squeeze out the folks over on
alt.cancer.find.the.cure. If it comes to that, I shall be the first to stop
posting here!
Just in case that were to happen, here is my brilliant draw with Louis Blair
from a Chicago Open, in which we were tied for 1st place (Class D):

HTML invalid script error
no such position
no such game
cannot find moves
invalid header
nobody would want to
see such a game anyhow

:server error -- insufficient bandwidth:
peration halted:

You're a strange cat Greg, a real strange cat. Tell you what, I make
sure of you one more time OK?..

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:
Briarroot wrote in message
...
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....

1) Briarroot seems stupid enough not to understand the distinction between
responding "immediately" and responding "weeks after they originally
appeared".
2) Within the limits of my time and space and knowledge, I prefer to be as
factually accurate as practicable whenever I write here.
3) I take responsibility for what I write here. I do *not* deliberately make
false or offensive statements and then shrug off the consequences by
exclaiming, in effect: "So what? This is Usenet." (as Briarroot does)

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.

"Bwana" = African; "eating pygmy" = cannibalism and murder.
"Bwana...eating pygmy" = racist stereotype of Africans.

Tim Hanke, StanB, and Briarroot seem to enjoy their "Bwana...eating pygmy"
'jokes' together, and apparently they felt the urge to share them with
everyone else here.

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.

Briarroot seems to disclaim responsibility for his writing here by saying,
in effect: "So what? This is Usenet--anything goes."

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?

Briarroot has distorted the context of my quoting Briarroot's statement.

1) Briarroot has a copious record of lies here, which Mark Houlsby (who
writes independently of me) and I have documented with the evidence.
2) Briarroot's statement, "Well I may be completely wrong, what does it
matter?", evidently represents Briarroot's characteristic arrogant and
reckless disregard for the basic standards of accuracy, fairness, and
honesty in his writings here. That was the only relevant context of
my citing Briarroot's statement.
3) I did *not* claim that I had quoted Briarroot's *complete post* (21 lines
of original text). I regarded the rest of Briarroot's post (including a
paragraph on the troubles in Northern Ireland) as not relevant to my point.
4) But I clearly identified Briarroot's post by its thread and its date, so
that any interested reader could easily find and read it on one's own.
I believe that was a responsible thing for me to do.

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.

Briarroot (whose motto has been, "Observe the obvious!"--ergo, his latest
conclusion) has attempted another "proof by assertion". In doing so again,
Briarroot follows the "intellectual tradition" of "Holocaust deniers".

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).

As far as I know, Mark Houlsby was not attempting "to determine (my) home
country".

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.

That's characteristic Briarroot "logic": Briarroot admits that he does not
know something (the identity of my "homeland"), but he draws a definite
conclusion ("I am sure") about it anyway. Why does Briarroot apparently
believe that every country must have a history "little different from
America's"?

"A man generally judges of the disposition of others by his own. A deceiver
fears deception."
--Regina Maria Roche (Clermont)

--Nick

This post responds to Briarroot's apparent attempted "magnum opus"
(9 July 2003), which chiefly consists of his usual invective and
crudely attempted "proofs by assertion", which I have tended to
snip out of mercy to the reader. Briarroot's complete diatribe
may be read earlier in this thread.

In the thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice" (13 July 2003),
Mark Houlsby (who writes independently of me and sometimes has
criticised me) wrote a detailed confutation of Briarroot's lies
and distortions in his "magnum opus".

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R23F52185

For the record, here's Briarroot's response to Mark Houlsby:
"If that post doesn't perfectly illustrate my point about you
being Nick's eager lapdog, nothing ever will. One other quick
point: it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree with a
certain position because truth is not democratic."

In short, Briarroot avoided addressing any of Mark Houlsby's
specific points about Briarroot's lies and distortions.

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

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

(snipped)
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?...

As usual, Briarroot's objection is ludicrous.
I prefer to cite "scholarly references" whenever they are
available and relevant. Of course, in Briarroot's case there
are two significant factors:

1) "Briarroot" is an insignificant racist, not worth any scholar's
attention. Why should any scholar write about "Briarroot"?
2) The real name of "Briarroot" is not publicly known, so how
could any scholar find any real references to use in writing
about "Briarroot"?

The evidence of Briarroot's posts here shows that Briarroot is a
racist, at least with regard to his behaviour in this newsgroup.
A historian does *not* need to prove again and again, for instance,
that the Holocaust existed just because someone keeps denying that
it did.

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....

Apparently, Briarroot suggests that every view is of about
equivalent merit, regardless of how much evidence supports it,
and equally worth considering. "Holocaust deniers" everywhere
should be delighted to support that position.

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.

Briarroot's continuing ad hominem abuse reveals his true
character, not mine.

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.

1) I did *not* claim that I had quoted Briarroot's *complete post*.
2) I identified Briarroot's post by both its thread and its date,
so that any interested reader could easily find and read it on
one's own.
3) The rest of Briarroot's post was *not* relevant: it did *not*
support Briarroot's deliberate insult, "Blow it out your ass,
Nick!"
4) Again, Briarroot is lying whenever he makes that accusation
against me.

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

Of course, Briarroot completely snipped my evidence that had proved
him wrong.

[
[ 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.

Briarroot seems to be a solipsist; how many voices does he hear
in his head?

Briarroot wrote:
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.

I have been amazed by the lengths to which a racist such as Briarroot
has gone in disputing the commonsense opinion that Tim Hanke's
comment, "Bugger the Chinese", *could* be offensive to anyone.

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....

1) I know what my Chinese friends think because they have told me.
2) Briarroot's rhetorical inversion shows another of his infantile
traits.

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

Mark Houlsby already has confuted this lie by Briarroot.

I did *not* write *literally*, of course, that Briarroot has "made
claims that (he) can read minds". I do *not* believe that Briarroot
"can read minds" (If he could, then he should not seem so obsessed
about identifying my "homeland".), but Briarroot sometimes acts
*as though* he "can read minds". So I *sarcastically* wrote of
Briarroot's "amazing psychic powers".

In the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited" (4 May 2003), I wrote:
"Briarroot has made some unwarranted and offensive speculations
(which he regards as 'obvious' fact) about a conversation between
GM Xie Jun and me. Given that Briarroot was not present then, I
can only wonder why his amazing psychic powers are not being
exploited more usefully elsewhere."

Briarroot may be too stupid to recognise sarcasm.

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.

Briarroot evaded my question, but I shall answer his question.

I believe in the humanistic principle of 'gens una sumus'.
I am a human being. The Chinese are human beings, my brothers
and sisters in our family of humanity. I believe that treating
every people with equal respect, being opposed to racism, simply
means being pro-human.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal..."
--the United States Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

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.?

I already have written about racism outside the United States.

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.

For the sake of an accurate record, I was reproducing the posts.
I did *not* lie, though Briarroot aims at his usual distortion.

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"

Yes, as I recalled then, Briarroot "apparently suggested" that
within the context of his many other posts in the "Zhang Zhong
revisited" thread. If the reader cares to read every post in
the vast "Zhang Zhong revisited" thread in chronological order,
then one might be able to understand why that seems plausible.

I did *not* write that Briarroot *wrote* that specifically in
*his cited post*; and Briarroot prefers to ignore the evidence
of his other posts in that thread.

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.

Briarroot is a true believer in reiterated "proof by assertion".

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.

On 9 May 2003 in a direct response to Briarroot, I already proved the
existence of the racist taunt, "Ching Chong Chinaman", in the United
States. Briarroot decided to ignore all that evidence and continued
to maintain his lies about it until his reluctant admission (above)
of 9 July 2003.

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.

Briarroot is a true believer in reiterated "proof by assertion".

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?

Briarroot's comment is ludicrous. I provide ample evidence;
Briarroot tends to exclaim, "Observe the obvious!"

(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.

Briarroot "admitted it" only after two months of denying it.

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

That's another Briarroot distortion.

That webpage mentions *only one example of the usage* of 'Ching
Chong Chinaman' in the United Kingdom during the 1960s; it made
no claim whatsoever about its *origin*. In fact, according to
Asian Americans, the racist taunt, 'Ching Chong Chinaman', was
heard in the United States *before* the 1960s.

(snipped)
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.

Any competent reader should be able to understand the distinction
between "he wrote" and "he apparently suggested", though Briarroot
does not or prefers to distort it.

(snipped)
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!

(snipped)
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.

You, by way of contrast, are a sick individual. That last sentence is me
Observing the Obvious....

And that's more evidence of Briarroot's derangement.

'In one sense all misconduct is proof of insanity.'
--Anthony Trollope (He Knew He Was Right)

--Nick

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.