Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

Those of us who can read, and have read all of the relevant evidence, noticed
that Nick wrote *ages ago* EXACTLY where he lives. Clearly, you're just too
plain dumb to have worked it out. The evidence has literally been dangled in
front of you on these groups, if you had been bothered to pay attention,
instead of snipping and lying, as is your usual wont...

Well if it was written exactly as you suggest, why would
it need working out?

Why doesn't Nick brag about his home country's record on
human rights? Is it because he can't? I'm betting that's
the case. Instead he carries on with his series of anti-
American posts, while claiming all along he has nothing
against the USA, the phony. Why he thinks the readers
r.g.c.m. deserve this idiocy is another question.

The reality is that all nations, especially those that have
attained a position of world power, have an equally abysmal
history of outrage and atrocity. My problem is that Nick
has a bug up his ass about the USA, and he refuses to admit
it.

As to the charge of lying, I take it you haven't read the
Lev Khariton thread. You're hero has been found guilty
of the most outrageous attempts at forgery and prevarication;
the very things which you are accusing me of doing.

Observe the Obvious!

From: Briarroot
Date: 11/07/03 05:43 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

Those of us who can read, and have read all of the relevant evidence,
noticed
that Nick wrote *ages ago* EXACTLY where he lives. Clearly, you're just too
plain dumb to have worked it out. The evidence has literally been dangled
in
front of you on these groups, if you had been bothered to pay attention,
instead of snipping and lying, as is your usual wont...

Well if it was written exactly as you suggest, why would
it need working out?


For many of us it doesn't. For ****wits, (and clearly you're a paradigm among
****wits) evidently it does...

Why doesn't Nick brag about his home country's record on
human rights? Is it because he can't? I'm betting that's
the case. Instead he carries on with his series of anti-
American posts, while claiming all along he has nothing
against the USA, the phony.

I'm sure that he would *not* claim that he has got nothing against the USA.
Many Americans here (Jerome Bibuld and Joshua Lilly are but two examples) have
written things against the USA. Does that make them anti-American?

Sorry, I keep forgetting that you are too much of a ****wit to work this out
(assuming you've read these things, as you should have since you're in this
particular flame war).

For the record, Timothy Hanke has badmouthed his own land in these groups (and
it took a Canadian to defend that land)


Why he thinks the readers
r.g.c.m. deserve this idiocy is another question.


Why you think it idiocy is yet another. Oh, I keep forgetting, you're a
****wit, that's why...

The reality is that all nations, especially those that have
attained a position of world power, have an equally abysmal
history of outrage and atrocity. My problem is that Nick
has a bug up his ass about the USA, and he refuses to admit
it.


He HAS admitted it, several times. ****wit.


As to the charge of lying, I take it you haven't read the
Lev Khariton thread. You're hero has been found guilty
of the most outrageous attempts at forgery and prevarication;
the very things which you are accusing me of doing.


Give *specific* examples, so that we might discuss them. Do you know how to do
that, ****wit?

While Nick (and his spittle) may oftentimes sink into the quagmire of
personal attack and therein pretend to seize the moral high ground in the most
ludicrous manner, these criticisms of the U.S. do not require that Nick's
homeland have a spotless record in order to be valid. No, even if Nick were
from the worst country imaginable, his criticisms of the U.S. should be
evaluated on their own merits.


In addition, it should be kept in mind that those who find and point out
one's weaknesses are not always the enemy! The *real* enemy may be those among
us who turn a blind eye to very real problems, while pretending to be, and
loudly proclaiming they are, "patriots".


I believe those who feel a NEED to know exactly who someone is, or where they
are from, are simply "out of ammo," and fumbling around to find more.

Better to take a head-on approach to such criticisms. Grab the bull by the
nose if you're a bulldog, or by the horns if you're a damnfool, and wrestle it
to the ground!



Instead he carries on with his series of anti-
American posts, while claiming all along he has nothing
against the USA, the phony.

The reality is that all nations, especially those that have
attained a position of world power, have an equally abysmal
history


Two wrongs do not a right make. Add them together, rather than trying to use
subtraction, the way they always taught you in school.


"My opponent blundered a Rook, so I countered by leaving two pieces en prise,
as I was already down two pawns, which my selfish opponent had never given
back."

Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

From: Briarroot

Well if it was written exactly as you suggest, why would
it need working out?


For many of us it doesn't. For ****wits, (and clearly you're a paradigm among
****wits) evidently it does...

Why doesn't Nick brag about his home country's record on
human rights? Is it because he can't? I'm betting that's
the case. Instead he carries on with his series of anti-
American posts, while claiming all along he has nothing
against the USA, the phony.

I'm sure that he would *not* claim that he has got nothing against the USA.
Many Americans here (Jerome Bibuld and Joshua Lilly are but two examples) have
written things against the USA. Does that make them anti-American?

He already *has* made that claim. As a bootlicker, you're making
a poor effort. Don't you read your hero's posts? Isn't that
what you're berating me about? LMAO


Why you think it idiocy is yet another. Oh, I keep forgetting, you're a
****wit, that's why...

Yeah, you keep forgetting a lot of things. I'd say that's your
sole talent.


As to the charge of lying, I take it you haven't read the
Lev Khariton thread. You're hero has been found guilty
of the most outrageous attempts at forgery and prevarication;
the very things which you are accusing me of doing.


Give *specific* examples, so that we might discuss them. Do you know how to do
that, ****wit?

I gave two specific examples, with proof, in the Lev Khariton thread.
Are you broken hearted? :-)

Keep on kissing Nick's boot's. It's hilarious!

NoMoreChess wrote:

While Nick (and his spittle) may oftentimes sink into the quagmire of
personal attack and therein pretend to seize the moral high ground in the most
ludicrous manner, these criticisms of the U.S. do not require that Nick's
homeland have a spotless record in order to be valid. No, even if Nick were
from the worst country imaginable, his criticisms of the U.S. should be
evaluated on their own merits.

In addition, it should be kept in mind that those who find and point out
one's weaknesses are not always the enemy! The *real* enemy may be those among
us who turn a blind eye to very real problems, while pretending to be, and
loudly proclaiming they are, "patriots".

I agree with you in principle, but that is not why I am asking
Nick for a history of his own home country's abuses. If he would
present his own nation's sad history alongside that of the USA, I
might simply ignore the posts, unless I detected a factual error.
It is his relentless, one-sided attempts to throw dirt that prompts
my objections. Only if he is without sin, should he be casting
stones. He is, of course, not without sin; and there are other,
more appropriate forums for his political musings.


I believe those who feel a NEED to know exactly who someone is, or where they
are from, are simply "out of ammo," and fumbling around to find more.

What I am "fumbling around" for is the reason for which Nick has
chosen r.g.c.m to pontificate about US history. It's his 'holier
than thou' attitude which rubs me the wrong way.


Two wrongs do not a right make. Add them together, rather than trying to use
subtraction, the way they always taught you in school.

Heheheh! If that were truly observed, there would never be another
UseNet flame war. How boring things might then become!

From: Briarroot
Date: 12/07/03 05:03 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

NoMoreChess wrote:

While Nick (and his spittle) may oftentimes sink into the quagmire of
personal attack and therein pretend to seize the moral high ground in the
most
ludicrous manner, these criticisms of the U.S. do not require that Nick's
homeland have a spotless record in order to be valid. No, even if Nick
were
from the worst country imaginable, his criticisms of the U.S. should be
evaluated on their own merits.

In addition, it should be kept in mind that those who find and point out
one's weaknesses are not always the enemy! The *real* enemy may be those
among
us who turn a blind eye to very real problems, while pretending to be, and
loudly proclaiming they are, "patriots".

I agree with you in principle, but that is not why I am asking
Nick for a history of his own home country's abuses. If he would
present his own nation's sad history alongside that of the USA, I
might simply ignore the posts, unless I detected a factual error.
It is his relentless, one-sided attempts to throw dirt that prompts
my objections. Only if he is without sin, should he be casting
stones. He is, of course, not without sin; and there are other,
more appropriate forums for his political musings.


Once again, if you weren't such a ****wit, you'd *know* where his homeland
is... (and you'd know, therefore, what a perfect asshole you're making of
yourself, again...)



I believe those who feel a NEED to know exactly who someone is, or where
they
are from, are simply "out of ammo," and fumbling around to find more.

What I am "fumbling around" for is the reason for which Nick has
chosen r.g.c.m to pontificate about US history. It's his 'holier
than thou' attitude which rubs me the wrong way.


The reason he has chosen RGCM is that Tim Hanke, StanB and you have all
published UNFOUNDED, UNPROVOKED attacks on him IN RGCM.

YOU' VE BEEN TOLD THIS **** KNOWS HOW MANY TIMES, AND NOT JUST BY NICK AND ME.

Two wrongs do not a right make. Add them together, rather than trying to
use
subtraction, the way they always taught you in school.

Heheheh! If that were truly observed, there would never be another
UseNet flame war. How boring things might then become!


Would that it might be more civilised without ****wits like StanB and you
publishing unwarranted, unprovoked attacks and then INSISTING upon CONTINUING
to embarrass yourselves as much as possible...

D'you wanna try again, ****wit?

I agree with you in principle, but that is not why I am asking
Nick for a history of his own home country's abuses.


In this case, we could select any country *at random* and use it's history to
place ours into better perspective. No matter if Nick was born in Antarctica,
or the Sahara desert, then.
Let's consider them all, not just Nick's homeland (which, for all we know,
could be one of the many countries "we" have squashed!



It is his relentless, one-sided attempts to throw dirt that prompts
my objections.


Nick has targetted specific posters here whom he obviously doesn't like, and
thrown dirt upon them while pretending to be far above such behavior.
But some of his general comments about our government's actions would please
those belonging to, say, the party not in control at the moment. He could be a
disgruntled Democrat and make the very same criticisms, so why are you so
fixated on his national origin? I think perhaps his many "attacks" or rather,
criticisms, of the U.S. may be in reaction to overzealous "patriots" spouting
nonsense while waving the flag.



Only if he is without sin, should he be casting
stones.


Right. That is why, after seeing ONE TINY MISTAKE by Kasparov, I burned my
autographed copies of all his books. What does he know, that patzer!



there are other,
more appropriate forums for his political musings.


Ah, the "Off-topic" Defense! I KNEW it would eventually come to that. What
surprised me, was that this ingenius defense was ignored for so very long! I
call that the equivalent of resignation. Just like when Nick started quoting
about how you should never mud-wrestle with pigs, and said he was going to stop
(not realizing he WAS a pig!)

I wonder if Nick's cronies (I assume he has more than just the one) will ever
realize that Nick has preached on and on about the evil way in which people
like Stan Booz have used profanity/vulgarity, and so forth, then stood
completely silent when his own bootlicker, Houlsby, went balistic with the term
"****wit." Probably, noticing such obvious hypocrisy is well over their
heads.



What I am "fumbling around" for is the reason for which Nick has
chosen r.g.c.m to pontificate about US history. It's his 'holier
than thou' attitude which rubs me the wrong way.


Nick should go to the history newsgroups and pontificate about chess --
wouldn't that be annoying?
It seems to me that since chess is of no real importance, a lot of people
venture off topic here, and such actions are welcomed by some (who may not care
whether White is up only three pawns, or five, in Sam's pet Damiano's Defense
line), and bemoaned by others. When posters talk about chess, we learn next
to nothing of real value. But when they talk about the real world, we can
learn something of value, on occasion.



Heheheh! If that were truly observed, there would never be another
UseNet flame war. How boring things might then become!

That is why I am, at this very moment, constructing a mathematical proof that
Mig (whoever he is) should be rated only 1500 USCF, and no more! In order to
do this, of course, I am using his very worst games from the 1984 World Open,
and Fritz, to tear them to pieces. I expect to soon have him down below 1200
-- right at my own level. Believe me, when his myriad cronies see this, there
will be all-out war! Soon, your "love affair" with Nick and Houlsby will be
but a fond memory....

Once again, if you weren't such a ****wit,

YOU' VE BEEN TOLD THIS **** KNOWS HOW MANY TIMES,

INSISTING upon CONTINUING
to embarrass yourselves as much as possible...
D'you wanna try again, ****wit?



*Someone* is doing a fine job of embarrassing, not only himself, but Nick,
the man who pretends to abhor vulgarity, but ONLY when it is used by certain
people he doesn't like. Thank you for highlighting this hypocrisy for us all.

BTW, either your caps-lock key is stuck, or else you have serious issues with
ANGER! This is significant because the one who suffers the most stress is
not the intended target, but the shooter himself! It's kind of like shooting
yourself in the foot (which REALLY hurts, as I limpingly recall....)

From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 12/07/03 10:49 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Once again, if you weren't such a ****wit,

YOU' VE BEEN TOLD THIS **** KNOWS HOW MANY TIMES,

INSISTING upon CONTINUING
to embarrass yourselves as much as possible...
D'you wanna try again, ****wit?



*Someone* is doing a fine job of embarrassing, not only himself, but Nick,
the man who pretends to abhor vulgarity, but ONLY when it is used by certain
people he doesn't like. Thank you for highlighting this hypocrisy for us
all.

BTW, either your caps-lock key is stuck, or else you have serious issues
with
ANGER! This is significant because the one who suffers the most stress is
not the intended target, but the shooter himself! It's kind of like shooting
yourself in the foot (which REALLY hurts, as I limpingly recall....)


You're really not very good at this, are you?

I could not possibly care less whether or not Nick is embarrassed by this
because, contrary to Briarroot's repeated, utterly false, assertion, I am *not*
Nick's lickspittle. I am doing this because I believe (just as John Macnab
believes) that Briarroot is being both rude and foolish.

What you falsely perceive as an ANGRY voice is nothing more (and nothing less)
than a QUIETLY INSISTENT one.

Actually I'm laughing my ass off at Hanke, StanB and Briarroot who, after all
this time, and so many admonishments, STILL insist upon behaving like complete
assholes (something about which we both are not completely ignorant).

Concerning your assertion that I do this only to people I don't like... that is
certainly true.. I seem to get on with most folks here... in fact, the only
folks with whom I don't get on are ignorant, rude, ****wit trolls (like StanB,
Briarroot and Hanke...)

Alles klar?

Mark

From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 12/07/03 10:37 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

I agree with you in principle, but that is not why I am asking
Nick for a history of his own home country's abuses.


In this case, we could select any country *at random* and use it's history
to
place ours into better perspective. No matter if Nick was born in
Antarctica,
or the Sahara desert, then.
Let's consider them all, not just Nick's homeland (which, for all we know,
could be one of the many countries "we" have squashed!



It is his relentless, one-sided attempts to throw dirt that prompts
my objections.


Nick has targetted specific posters here whom he obviously doesn't like,

Oh dear you REALLY are bad at this, aren't you?!

If you read the record (which is on Google) more carefully, you will find that
Nick has targeted *nobody*. All he has done is respond to unprovoked and
unfounded attacks. It has been said many times by him and by me that he will
continue to respond like this until such unfounded and unwarranted attacks
cease.

It has nothing to do with his not liking people (actually I have no idea who he
may or may not like).


and
thrown dirt upon them while pretending to be far above such behavior.
But some of his general comments about our government's actions would
please
those belonging to, say, the party not in control at the moment. He could be
a
disgruntled Democrat and make the very same criticisms, so why are you so
fixated on his national origin? I think perhaps his many "attacks" or
rather,
criticisms, of the U.S. may be in reaction to overzealous "patriots" spouting
nonsense while waving the flag.


That, I think, is true.

Only if he is without sin, should he be casting
stones.


Right. That is why, after seeing ONE TINY MISTAKE by Kasparov, I burned my
autographed copies of all his books. What does he know, that patzer!


Well, he knows how to cheat...


there are other,
more appropriate forums for his political musings.


Ah, the "Off-topic" Defense! I KNEW it would eventually come to that.
What
surprised me, was that this ingenius defense was ignored for so very long!
I
call that the equivalent of resignation. Just like when Nick started quoting
about how you should never mud-wrestle with pigs, and said he was going to
stop
(not realizing he WAS a pig!)

I wonder if Nick's cronies (I assume he has more than just the one) will
ever
realize that Nick has preached on and on about the evil way in which people
like Stan Booz have used profanity/vulgarity, and so forth, then stood
completely silent when his own bootlicker, Houlsby, went balistic with the
term
"****wit."

Utter nonsense. If I was his "bootlicker" he would, I suspect, forbid me from
using the term "****wit".

I was not, as you put it, "ballistic". I was merely telling it like it is.

If Briarroot was not, *in fact* a ****wit, he would have taken heed, long ago,
of the free advice from Nick, from John Macnab, "PJDBAD", Jerome Bibuld and
others that he has, for many months, been behaving like a total asshole (to use
Bibuld's description of him). That he *still* hasn't realised, MONTHS LATER,
that he's behaving like a total asshole, then he MUST BE a ****wit.

In circumstances such as these, my philosophy is: "Send a thief to care for the
summer..."

Probably, noticing such obvious hypocrisy is well over their
heads.


It's not hypocrisy. It's a *response* to a very great deal of unprovoked,
unconscionable behaviour by Briarroot, StanB and Hanke. Surely you can tell the
difference?


What I am "fumbling around" for is the reason for which Nick has
chosen r.g.c.m to pontificate about US history. It's his 'holier
than thou' attitude which rubs me the wrong way.


Nick should go to the history newsgroups and pontificate about chess --
wouldn't that be annoying?
It seems to me that since chess is of no real importance, a lot of people
venture off topic here, and such actions are welcomed by some (who may not
care
whether White is up only three pawns, or five, in Sam's pet Damiano's Defense
line), and bemoaned by others. When posters talk about chess, we learn
next
to nothing of real value. But when they talk about the real world, we can
learn something of value, on occasion.



Heheheh! If that were truly observed, there would never be another
UseNet flame war. How boring things might then become!

That is why I am, at this very moment, constructing a mathematical proof
that
Mig (whoever he is) should be rated only 1500 USCF, and no more! In order to
do this, of course, I am using his very worst games from the 1984 World Open,
and Fritz, to tear them to pieces. I expect to soon have him down below 1200

-- right at my own level. Believe me, when his myriad cronies see this,
there
will be all-out war! Soon, your "love affair" with Nick and Houlsby will be
but a fond memory....


Would that that were true...

Keep trying, I can tell that you might eventually get a handle on all of this.
You must do your research more carefully, however...