1. The only right way to play the French Defense is to play 2....d5, then
surrender your forces without a fight.


Easy for you to say. But then, you don't have panzers rolling through your
front yard, do you? Perhaps Germany would have demolished France, and we could
all look back now and praise the brave men who bravely stood and died -- yes,
ALL of them.


Encyclopedia entry-

France: a great country before WWII. Now desolate, unoccupied desert. See:
Germany. See also: WWII. See also: wine (obsolete).

Eiffel Tower: a famous landmark before WWII. See: Germany. See also: WWII.
See also scap steel.



Ah, it is such fun to ridicule those who did not throw themselves under the
tracks of rolling Tiger tanks, in the name of stopping evil! And the best part
is, the French are *alive* to hear our ridicule -- unlike those inconsiderate
Russians, who did the opposite until those muddy tank-tracks broke (damed
leg-bones get stuck in between the plates, you know). Of course, not everyone
was this lucky. Many were simply shot down by machine guns, or starved to
death, or froze, or were cramped and suffocated. Which brings us right back to
the bloody French Defense, doesn't it? ;-)

geez, all i did was make a comment about the French Defense, and suddenly I
have Rommel's 7th Panzer Division rolling through my front yard!
By the way, the Tiger tank did not make its appearance till 1943, way
after France was overrun. The fact is, France had more tanks than Germany.
They just had no idea how to use them (with the exception of Degaulle).
Hey any good chess players among the German generals???? One would think
that at least a couple of them had an interest in chess.

"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...
1. The only right way to play the French Defense is to play 2....d5,
then
surrender your forces without a fight.


Easy for you to say. But then, you don't have panzers rolling through
your
front yard, do you? Perhaps Germany would have demolished France, and we
could
all look back now and praise the brave men who bravely stood and died --
yes,
ALL of them.


Encyclopedia entry-

France: a great country before WWII. Now desolate, unoccupied desert.
See:
Germany. See also: WWII. See also: wine (obsolete).

Eiffel Tower: a famous landmark before WWII. See: Germany. See also:
WWII.
See also scap steel.



Ah, it is such fun to ridicule those who did not throw themselves under
the
tracks of rolling Tiger tanks, in the name of stopping evil! And the best
part
is, the French are *alive* to hear our ridicule -- unlike those
inconsiderate
Russians, who did the opposite until those muddy tank-tracks broke (damed
leg-bones get stuck in between the plates, you know). Of course, not
everyone
was this lucky. Many were simply shot down by machine guns, or starved to
death, or froze, or were cramped and suffocated. Which brings us right
back to
the bloody French Defense, doesn't it? ;-)

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
bhnews ) wrote:
1. The only right way to play the French Defense is to play 2....d5,
then surrender your forces without a fight.

Easy for you to say. But then, you don't have panzers rolling through your
front yard, do you?...

I agree with the general sentiments of NoMoreChess's post.

In 1940, like the French, the Americans also were unprepared for a
great war. But the United States was fortunate enough to have, as its
neighbors, Canada and Mexico, not Hitler's Third Reich.

The reasons why France fell in 1940 are too complex to explain in
detail here. It's true that toward the campaign's end, when it had
become evident that they would be fighting and probably dying for an
already lost cause, many French units ceased their resistance and
melted away in a general 'sauve qui peut!' But under extreme
circumstances of hopelessness, almost every army tends to become
demoralised, ineffective, and fragmented.

When, in 1943 at the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, the well-equipped,
fully trained, and highly confident United States Army encountered
the German forces of Field Marshal Rommel (the legendary 'desert
fox'), the Americans were swiftly routed, surrendering in substantial
numbers. Fortunately for them, unlike the French in 1940, the
Americans were allowed enough of a respite for them to be able to
recover from the consequences of their ineptitude.

Ah, it is such fun to ridicule those who did not throw themselves under
the tracks of rolling Tiger tanks, in the name of stopping evil!...

For the historical record, the French did not have to fight any
German Tiger tanks in 1940. The Tiger I (Panzerkampfwagen VI) tank
was not introduced into combat until 1942.

Whenever ignorant jingoistic Americans revel in ridiculing other
peoples, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly American"
stereotypes abroad. Those self-proclaimed "pro-American" Americans
might laugh less if they became more aware of that reality.

--Nick

Nick (The Pathetic Pedantic Twit) wrote:


In 1940, like the French, the Americans also were unprepared for a
great war. But the United States was fortunate enough to have, as its
neighbors, Canada and Mexico, not Hitler's Third Reich.

The French army was vastly larger than the US Army in 1940.
Fortunately the US was protected by the Atlantic ocean.


The reasons why France fell in 1940 are too complex to explain in
detail here. It's true that toward the campaign's end, when it had
become evident that they would be fighting and probably dying for an
already lost cause, many French units ceased their resistance and
melted away in a general 'sauve qui peut!' But under extreme
circumstances of hopelessness, almost every army tends to become
demoralised, ineffective, and fragmented.

When, in 1943 at the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, the well-equipped,
fully trained, and highly confident United States Army encountered
the German forces of Field Marshal Rommel (the legendary 'desert
fox'), the Americans were swiftly routed, surrendering in substantial
numbers. Fortunately for them, unlike the French in 1940, the
Americans were allowed enough of a respite for them to be able to
recover from the consequences of their ineptitude.

According to British Field Marshall Alexander, the American army
was both poorly trained and ill-equipped to do battle with the
German army. The American tanks, for example, were not designed
for tank versus tank warfare. The were inferior in both armor
thickness and in gun power to the German Pz Mark IVs which they
faced at Kasserine. Likewise the Germans had been fighting for
3-1/2 years by that date, while the Americans were facing their
first major battle since 1918. This quality differential was
demonstrated very neatly be the Germans at Faid Pass[1] and Gafsa,
where they drove forward practically unimpeded until the terrain
canalized their movements and American artillery could zero in on
them.

[1] The battle at Kasserine pass was an American victory, the
earlier battles at Faid Pass and Gafsa which drove the US Army
back toward Kasserine were German victories.


Whenever ignorant jingoistic Americans revel in ridiculing other
peoples, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly American"
stereotypes abroad. Those self-proclaimed "pro-American" Americans
might laugh less if they became more aware of that reality.

Whenever ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans revel in ridiculing
the USA, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly foreigner"
stereotypes at home. Those self-proclaimed "anti-American"
foreigners might laugh less if they became more aware of that
reality. Such as for example, the French. ;-)


[For the record: I think the whole anti-French fad, complete
with Freedom Fries, etc, is extremely silly, but entirely
inconsequential.]

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Pathetic Pedantic Twit) wrote:
...
When, in 1943 at the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, the well-equipped,
fully trained, and highly confident United States Army encountered
the German forces of Field Marshal Rommel (the legendary 'desert
fox'), the Americans were swiftly routed, surrendering in substantial
numbers. Fortunately for them, unlike the French in 1940, the
Americans were allowed enough of a respite for them to be able to
recover from the consequences of their ineptitude.

According to British Field Marshall Alexander, the American army
was both poorly trained and ill-equipped to do battle with the
German army....

What I meant was that the United States Army *had* regarded itself as
well-prepared and *had* been "highly confident" *before* it
"encountered the German forces of Field Marshal Rommel" and the brutal
realities of battle.

The Americans were "fully trained" in the sense that they had
completed their full training schedules at their bases in the United
States. Also, the Americans were "well-equipped" in the sense that
their weapons and logistical support tended to be superior in
quantity, though sometimes not in quality, to the Germans', who had
a tenuous supply line, which was often interdicted by Allied naval
and air forces, across the Mediterranean Sea to North Africa.

It was only *after* being defeated in battle by the Germans that the
Americans realized that they had been overconfident and that their
forces urgently needed major improvement on many levels. That was
when the quite critical assessments of the United States Army's
performance in battle were made.

To its credit, the United States Army was able to learn from its
initial errors and improve its performance in combat. In contrast,
in 1940 the French were not allowed enough time by the swiftly
advancing Germans to be able to learn and recover from their
initial errors.

[1] The battle at Kasserine pass was an American victory, the
earlier battles at Faid Pass and Gafsa which drove the US Army
back toward Kasserine were German victories.

Evidently, Briarroot does not consider himself "pedantic" when he
appears so here, even when perhaps mistakenly so with regard to
his "correction" of my post.

Like other writers, I mentioned the "Battle of Kasserine Pass" in
a general sense. Here's another example of that usage from a paper
by David Pasquantonio, a student at SAIS, the School of Advanced
International Studies, at John Hopkins University:

"The German victory over US forces in the Battle of Kasserine Pass
in February 1943 was a terrible baptism by fire for the United
States Army...."
(from "The Battle of Kasserine Pass and the Development of Army Air
Forces Doctrine")

And, evidently, Professor Thomas Keaney of John Hopkins University
approved of that usage, of calling the "Battle of Kasserine Pass"
a "German victory".

Whenever ignorant jingoistic Americans revel in ridiculing other
peoples, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly American"
stereotypes abroad. Those self-proclaimed "pro-American" Americans
might laugh less if they became more aware of that reality.

Whenever ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans revel in ridiculing
the USA, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly foreigner"
stereotypes at home. Those self-proclaimed "anti-American"
foreigners might laugh less if they became more aware of that
reality. Such as for example, the French. ;-)

For the record, there was nothing in my post cited by Briarroot that should
be construed as "ridiculing the USA". Evidently, Briarroot's hypersensitive
to any perceived slights of the United States, so he might regard my mentioning
the *fact* that the United States Army lost its first major battle against
the Germans in the Second World War as "ridiculing the USA".

Briarroot has made another of his ludicrous ignorant ad hominem attacks on me.

For the record, Briarroot *never* has met me, and he knows nearly nothing about
me. Briarroot *never* has seen my passport(s). So what is my 'homeland'?

On the other hand, Briarroot already has written posts denigrating the supposed
culture of my 'homeland', which he has been unable to identify. Now Briarroot
has accused me of being an 'ignorant jingoist' (according to the dictionary,
a 'jingoist' is an 'extreme national chauvinist') on behalf of my 'nation',
which he's also unable to identify.

Contrary to Briarroot's ludicrous claim that I am a 'jingoist', I have *never*
even written anything here about 'my homeland' or 'my nation', let alone
written anything here that could be construed as 'national chauvinism' on its
behalf. A 'jingoist' cannot act like a jingoist in an anonymous context;
jingoism requires a specific nation to become the idol of a jingoist's worship.
Whose national flag does Briarroot believe that I have been waving?

For the record, I *never* have "proclaimed" myself to be "anti-American",
contrary to what Briarroot claims. In my posts here so far, I have criticised
imperialism by the United States and *also* imperialism by the United Kingdom,
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Japan (just to name several examples).
I do *not* believe that the government of the United States is always 100%
right, and if Briarroot regards my expressions of that belief as intrinsically
"anti-American", then so be it.

Am I ignorant? Ignorance is relative, and I am ignorant on some subjects when
compared to some people, but not when compared on most subjects to Briarroot.

Here are some comments on my posts here from a variety of American 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."

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

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

In contrast, Briarroot already has been characterised explicitly by several
people here as a "racist" and by other people here as an "asshole".

For the record, in the thread 'Zhang Zhong revisited', Briarroot insolently
denied the existence of any anti-Chinese racial slurs in the United States
since "about 1935". When I provided overwhelming evidence to confute Briarroot's
denial, he became enraged (9 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to me: "Blow it out
your ass, Nick!") and responded by escalating his ad hominem attacks on me.
Briarroot seems much too insecure to admit that he could ever be wrong.

[For the record: I think the whole anti-French fad, complete with
Freedom Fries, etc, is extremely silly, but entirely inconsequential.]

I can agree with Briarroot on that point.
And I also agree with Jerome Bibuld that Briarroot is "beneath human dispute".

--Nick

"bhnews" wrote in message . net...
geez, all i did was make a comment about the French Defense, and suddenly I
have Rommel's 7th Panzer Division rolling through my front yard!

Bhnews did not only "make a comment about the French Defense"; he also added a
gibe apparently aimed at alleged French military cowardice, presumably due to
the unexpectedly sudden fall of France in 1940. At least, that's what I infer
that NoMoreChess understood when he wrote his response to bhnews here.

By the way, the Tiger tank did not make its appearance till 1943...

Actually, Tiger I tanks were deployed to Wehrmacht units in the field in 1942.

The fact is, France had more tanks than Germany. They just had no idea how
to use them (with the exception of Degaulle).

General Heinz Guderian's revolutionary ideas about the operational and tactical
doctrines for armoured units were not emulated outside the Wehrmacht then.

Hey any good chess players among the German generals???? One would think
that at least a couple of them had an interest in chess.

As I recall, the German generals tended to play cards more than chess.
In 1945 Heinz Guderian, the Chief of the German General Staff, made a famous
statement to Hitler, comparing the Eastern Front to 'a house of cards'.

You might be interested in this book comparing Go and Mao Zedong's strategy:
"The Protracted Game: a Wei'Chi Intepretation of Maoist Revolutionary Strategy"
by Scott Boorman (1969, Oxford University Press)

--Nick

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Pedantic Twit) wrote:
...
The Americans were "fully trained" in the sense that they had completed
their full training schedules at their bases in the United States.

Having completed an inadequate training schedule, they were left unprepared
for the thorough professionalism exhibited by the German Army. But then, so
were the armies of every European power at the time.

The assessment that the United States Army's training had been
"inadequate" was made only *after* the Americans had been defeated
by the Germans in a major battle in 1943.

Also, the Americans were "well-equipped" in the sense that
their weapons and logistical support tended to be superior in
quantity, though sometimes not in quality, to the Germans', who had
a tenuous supply line, which was often interdicted by Allied naval
and air forces, across the Mediterranean Sea to North Africa.

Yes, but at the point of contact, quantity does guarantee victory, nor
prevent defeat. Soldiers under fire have little use for logistical support
when the weapons they must fight with are discovered to be inferior.

I never wrote anything about a United States Army victory being
"guaranteed" in its first major battle against the Wehrmacht.
Also, some logistical support, such as the supplies of ammunition,
is vital at the "sharp end" of battle.

(Nick wrote earlier, *not* to Briarroot):
Whenever ignorant jingoistic Americans revel in ridiculing other
peoples, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly American"
stereotypes abroad. Those self-proclaimed "pro-American" Americans
might laugh less if they became more aware of that reality.

I wrote that above to offer some advice to the Americans who really
care about how the United States tends to be perceived in the rest
of the world. Apparently, some Americans might regard it as
"anti-American" because they believe that the United States is
already undoubtedly perfect in all of its policies. Of course,
those Americans are free to ignore my advice (and anyone else's)
and proceed as they have done. Yet they seem to wonder why everyone
else in the world does not perceive the United States exactly as
they like to do.

Note that next comes the *critical passage* to be discussed later:

(Then Briarroot wrote directly to Nick):
Whenever ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans revel in ridiculing
the USA, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly foreigner"
stereotypes at home. Those self-proclaimed "anti-American"
foreigners might laugh less if they became more aware of that
reality. Such as for example, the French. ;-)

(So Nick responded to Briarroot):
For the record, there was nothing in my post cited by Briarroot that should
be construed as "ridiculing the USA"....Briarroot has made another of his
ludicrous ignorant ad hominem attacks on me.
...
(Please note that Briarroot completely snipped my defence against his
attack. Please read my complete post earlier in this thread.)

(Now Briarroot wrote to Nick):
Nick has made another of his ludicrous, ignorant, ad hominem attacks on me.

That's another rendition of "It must be true because I say so! I am
Briarroot!" Briarroot's claim will be shown to be a *distortion*
later.

For the record, there was nothing in my post that should be construed as an
ad hominem attack against you. Evidently, you are hypersensitive to any
perceived slights, so you might regard my mentioning the *fact* that you
continue to post messages criticizing the USA and its culture, as ridiculing
you.

What specific "fact" about me did Briarroot mention in the *critical
passage* that he wrote above? It's true that Briarroot did not
mention me by name in his cited critical passage. But Briarroot wrote
it *directly to me*, and now Briarroot has written (just above) that
he regards his post to me as "mentioning the *fact* that I continue to
post messages criticizing the USA and its culture". Hence, Briarroot
now acknowledges that he *intended me* to be among the people that he
*targeted* by his cited *critical passage*.

So here's his critical passage with the people *targeted* noted for
emphasis (Briarroot wrote directly to me):

"Whenever *ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans* revel in ridiculing
the USA, that corroborotes some of the worst 'ugly foreigner'
stereotypes at home. *Those self-proclaimed 'anti-American'
foreigners* might laugh less if they became more aware of that
reality. Such as, for example, the French."

Now I cannot read any specific words by Briarroot to the effect
that "I continue to post messages criticizing the USA and its
culture" *unless* Briarroot intended to *include me* among his
alleged "ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans" or his alleged
"self-proclaimed 'anti-American' foreigners".

And Briarroot has just informed me directly that his words *were
meant* to apply to me personally; indeed, Briarroot wrote about
"mentioning the *fact*" about me. Hence, according to Briarroot's
own latest statements to me, Briarroot *was including me* among
his alleged "ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans" or his alleged
"self-proclaimed 'anti-American' foreigners" when he wrote that.

And those allegations of Briarroot--that I am an "ignorant
jingoistic anti-American" or a "self-proclaimed 'anti-American'
foreigner"--constitute a "ludicrous ignorant ad hominem attack"
(as I have written), and those allegations *already have been
fully confuted* in my previous post in this thread.

Of course, Briarroot completely snipped my confutation of his
ad hominem attack, yet anyone interested may read it earlier in
this thread.

--Nick

Nick wrote:

Briarroot wrote in message
...
Nick (The Pedantic Twit) wrote:
...
The Americans were "fully trained" in the sense that they had completed
their full training schedules at their bases in the United States.

Having completed an inadequate training schedule, they were left
unprepared
for the thorough professionalism exhibited by the German Army. But then,
so
were the armies of every European power at the time.

The assessment that the United States Army's training had been
inadequate" was made only *after* the Americans had been defeated
by the Germans in a major battle in 1943.

You reiterate my point.


Also, the Americans were "well-equipped" in the sense that
their weapons and logistical support tended to be superior in
quantity, though sometimes not in quality, to the Germans', who had
a tenuous supply line, which was often interdicted by Allied naval
and air forces, across the Mediterranean Sea to North Africa.

Yes, but at the point of contact, quantity does guarantee victory, nor
prevent defeat. Soldiers under fire have little use for logistical
support
when the weapons they must fight with are discovered to be inferior.

I never wrote anything about a United States Army victory being
"guaranteed" in its first major battle against the Wehrmacht.
Also, some logistical support, such as the supplies of ammunition,
is vital at the "sharp end" of battle.

Obviously. I suppose that you are pathologically desirous of
getting in the last word, even if you have nothing further to add.


(Nick wrote earlier, *not* to Briarroot):
Whenever ignorant jingoistic Americans revel in ridiculing other
peoples, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly American"
stereotypes abroad. Those self-proclaimed "pro-American" Americans
might laugh less if they became more aware of that reality.

I wrote that above to offer some advice to the Americans who really
care about how the United States tends to be perceived in the rest
of the world. Apparently, some Americans might regard it as
"anti-American" because they believe that the United States is
already undoubtedly perfect in all of its policies.

Or perhaps they regard it as anti-American because you offer it
as such; you who have made many such remarks over the past few
months about American politics and American culture. Really, if
you wish to criticize, go right ahead. But you must also be
prepared to accept the approbation which your remarks may engender.
Evidently you feel you should be immune from reaction.

Of course,
those Americans are free to ignore my advice (and anyone else's)
and proceed as they have done. Yet they seem to wonder why everyone
else in the world does not perceive the United States exactly as
they like to do.

You frequently call to my attention that I do not speak for everyone
when I am prone to make statements in such terms, yet here you are
acting (with your post) as if you know what "everyone else in the
world" is thinking about the USA. You are clearly a twister of the
worst sort, and as I have shown in the other thread, a liar as well.

Note that next comes the *critical passage* to be discussed later:

(Then Briarroot wrote directly to Nick):
Whenever ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans revel in ridiculing
the USA, that corroborates some of the worst "ugly foreigner"
stereotypes at home. Those self-proclaimed "anti-American"
foreigners might laugh less if they became more aware of that
reality. Such as for example, the French. ;-)

(So Nick responded to Briarroot):
For the record, there was nothing in my post cited by Briarroot that
should
be construed as "ridiculing the USA"....Briarroot has made another of
his
ludicrous ignorant ad hominem attacks on me.
...
(Please note that Briarroot completely snipped my defence against his
attack. Please read my complete post earlier in this thread.)

Your so-called defense was a pathetic attempt to un-speak that which
had already been said. You claim special privileges for your own posts
and wish to deny me equal footing. Sauce for the goose, Nick!

(Now Briarroot wrote to Nick):
Nick has made another of his ludicrous, ignorant, ad hominem attacks on
me.

That's another rendition of "It must be true because I say so! I am
Briarroot!" Briarroot's claim will be shown to be a *distortion*
later.

LOL, I merely copied your words and switched our names, just as I copied
the text of "jingoist" paragraph and switched the terms. Hoist with
your
own petard, you were!

For the record, there was nothing in my post that should be construed as
an
ad hominem attack against you. Evidently, you are hypersensitive to any
perceived slights, so you might regard my mentioning the *fact* that you
continue to post messages criticizing the USA and its culture, as
ridiculing
you.

What specific "fact" about me did Briarroot mention in the *critical
passage* that he wrote above? It's true that Briarroot did not
mention me by name in his cited critical passage. But Briarroot wrote
it *directly to me*,

Heheh, I weep for you, Nick.

and now Briarroot has written (just above) that
he regards his post to me as "mentioning the *fact* that I continue to
post messages criticizing the USA and its culture". Hence, Briarroot
now acknowledges that he *intended me* to be among the people that he
*targeted* by his cited *critical passage*.

Can't take the heat, can you, old boy? How pathetic you truly are.
It's a pleasure to see you squirm so, in public.

So here's his critical passage with the people *targeted* noted for
emphasis (Briarroot wrote directly to me):

"Whenever *ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans* revel in ridiculing
the USA, that corroborotes some of the worst 'ugly foreigner'
stereotypes at home. *Those self-proclaimed 'anti-American'
foreigners* might laugh less if they became more aware of that
reality. Such as, for example, the French."

Now I cannot read any specific words by Briarroot to the effect
that "I continue to post messages criticizing the USA and its
culture" *unless* Briarroot intended to *include me* among his
alleged "ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans" or his alleged
"self-proclaimed 'anti-American' foreigners".

Oh geez, observe the obvious won't you? What a twit!

And Briarroot has just informed me directly that his words *were
meant* to apply to me personally; indeed, Briarroot wrote about
"mentioning the *fact*" about me. Hence, according to Briarroot's
own latest statements to me, Briarroot *was including me* among
his alleged "ignorant jingoistic anti-Americans" or his alleged
"self-proclaimed 'anti-American' foreigners" when he wrote that.

You repeat yourself to no effect. Get on with it!

And those allegations of Briarroot--that I am an "ignorant
jingoistic anti-American" or a "self-proclaimed 'anti-American'
foreigner"--constitute a "ludicrous ignorant ad hominem attack"
(as I have written), and those allegations *already have been
fully confuted* in my previous post in this thread.

You wear that hair shirt well, Nick. Now let's see if you can do
the proper penance.

Of course, Briarroot completely snipped my confutation of his
ad hominem attack, yet anyone interested may read it earlier in
his thread.

There was no confutation, and no one is confused by your obfuscation.

Observe the Obvious
If You Can't Take the Heat, Stay Out of the Kitchen
What's Sauce for the Goose, Is Sauce for the Gander

Thus endeth today's lesson. ;-)

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
--George Bernard Shaw

Someone else here sent me that advice above, which applies to what I should
do about Briarroot here. The advice is welcome, and I intend to follow it.
For the sake of clarity here, I add two brief comments.

Briarroot wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
(snipped)
Of course, those Americans are free to ignore my advice (and anyone else's)
and proceed as they have done. Yet they seem to wonder why everyone else
in the world does not perceive the United States exactly as they like to do.

That last sentence has a hastily written misplaced modifier--not. It should
be written as: "Yet they seem to wonder why *not* everyone else in the world
does perceive the United States exactly as they like to do." I regret any
lack of clarity on account of that.

I believe that most people outside the United States don't share the exact
perceptions of some jingoistic Americans about the United States. But I
suppose that some people outside of the United States might, for whatever
reasons, at least *claim* that they share those perceptions about the United
States.

For example, I would not be surprised if some Iraqis today may be assuring
their American military "guests" that everyone in Iraq (apart from Saddam
Hussein's family) loves every American and everything American. Meanwhile,
Americans and Iraqis continue to die in violent clashes.

LOL, I merely copied your words and switched our names, just as I copied
the text of "jingoist" paragraph and switched the terms. Hoist with
your own petard, you were!

It's a childish game to Briarroot, who prefers to display his graffiti here
instead of on a nearby wall.

The world is not bilaterally symmetrical, not in discourse and not in chess.

In chess, for instance, the opening theory after 1 c4 e5 (the English Opening)
is far from being the "flip side" of the opening theory after 1 e4 c5 (the
Sicilian Defence). Even in the reputedly drawish Petroff Defence, after
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nxe5, Black should not play 3...Nxe4, and symmetry is
broken at least for the moment.

And symmetry does not apply to what I write and what Briarroot tends to write.
I have evidence on my side; Briarroot does not. Briarroot's invective does
not count as evidence to any rational thinker.

--Nick

In chess, for instance, the opening theory after 1 c4 e5 (the English
Opening) is far from being the "flip side" of the opening theory after 1 e4 c5
(the
Sicilian Defence).


This is because the flip side is a tempo ahead/behind, and tactics have a
huge bearing on the game. For example: 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d5?? does *not* lead to
a Smith-Morra gambit, reversed!



Even in the reputedly drawish Petroff Defence, after
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nxe5, Black should not play 3...Nxe4, and symmetry is
broken at least for the moment.


There are some critics who would claim that Nick cannot analyse worth a hoot,
but the above comment shows otherwise: indeed, Black SHOULD NOT play
3....Nxe4?? in that position (although it is not actually a Petroff, but a Ruy
Lopez, but this is nitpicking).




Briarroot's invective does
not count as evidence to any rational thinker.


If briarroot recommended 3....Nxe4? in the Petroff, this cannot be refuted
by your clever 2.Nc6! You have to play your move first, and then wait and
see his reply. No takebacks!

BTW, b-root likes wild, tactical slugfests, so just play the exchange Ruy and
watch him sweat. If Fischer had written a book on this line, he might have
entitled it: "A Bust to the Ruy Lopez."