A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 14th 03, 03:28 AM
John Macnab
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice

Mhoulsby wrote:
From: John Macnab
Date: 12/07/03 16:07 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

I would like to keep my name reasonably distant from the current
degeneration of these arguments, please.



That very well may be, unfortunately, however, since Briarroot has now
published a distortion of something which *you* wrote, it may not be
possible..


This one seems minor



I did say that Briarroot was *being* rude and foolish in a particular
post; I made no claims with regard to his general demeanor or character.



Fair point.


(By the way, he good-naturedly agreed with my assessment.)



I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you give a specific reference,
please?


On May 28, Briarroot responded to my May 27 post:
"John Macnab wrote:

Briarroot

You are being both rude and foolish. I believe that it is good manners
to attempt to address people by the name that they themselves use. If
that makes me a "PC type" to small-minded people, then so be it.
Calling people names and attempting to overwhelm their sincere effort to
communicate their ideas doesn't make their ideas or words unworthy. But
it does reduce the desire to communicate with the like of you.


I admit to being rude, and on occasion I can be very
foolish. But good manners or no, I think this little
controversy has been blown way out of proportion, and
I will continue to think so until Zhang Zhong weighs
in with his opinion; if in fact, he cares at all.
In my opinion, it is "small-minded people" (in contrast
with broad minded people) who instigate these things.

I think the nick-names I given my two opponents are
humorous and I wouldn't mind if they hung one on me
in response. They aren't obscene and only mildly
derogatory. One should wear a thick skin if one wishes
to speak in public. And after all, what's in a name?"


It's true that *not everything* that Briarroot has written has been ignorant,
stupid, vituperative and generally moronic, but it's equally true that *almost
everything* he has written has matched that very description. What was the
exception which proved the rule?




Anyway, a few threads have become the rgcm equivalent of Jerry Springer.
Unfortunately, if I happen to scroll past them, I tune in for a few
minutes of disgust and loathing.



Are you seriously arguing that Briarroot's many ignorant and offensive posts do
not fit your apt description?


The best thing about USENET is that everyone has a voice. And the worst
thing about USENET is that everyone has a voice.

IMHO the participants have by and large forgotten the issues that began
the threads and are spending a lot of time positioning themselves as
favourably as possible in a pig-wresting contest. Unfortunate.


And for those who forgot, the original issues in the thread a
1. Zhang Zhong appears prepared to make a splash on the world scene, and
2. It is polite to use a person's name correctly.

John



Indeed it is unfortunate, but so is providing trolls with ammuntion to pursue a
divide-and-rule strategy. Kindly refrain from doing so in the future, or you
certainly *will* become *more* embroiled in flame wars...


PS When did NoMoreChess get so sensible?



He DID? When? Where?


He been quite astute all weekend, I think. He targeted Briarroot on
Friday, and gave you a couple of gentle cuffs on Saturday.

Best
Mark


Always a pleasure.

John

  #2  
Old July 14th 03, 03:50 AM
Mhoulsby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice

From: John Macnab
Date: 14/07/03 03:28 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Mhoulsby wrote:
From: John Macnab

Date: 12/07/03 16:07 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

I would like to keep my name reasonably distant from the current
degeneration of these arguments, please.



That very well may be, unfortunately, however, since Briarroot has now
published a distortion of something which *you* wrote, it may not be
possible..


This one seems minor



I did say that Briarroot was *being* rude and foolish in a particular
post; I made no claims with regard to his general demeanor or character.



Fair point.


(By the way, he good-naturedly agreed with my assessment.)



I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you give a specific reference,
please?


On May 28, Briarroot responded to my May 27 post:
"John Macnab wrote:

Briarroot

You are being both rude and foolish. I believe that it is good manners
to attempt to address people by the name that they themselves use. If
that makes me a "PC type" to small-minded people, then so be it.
Calling people names and attempting to overwhelm their sincere effort to
communicate their ideas doesn't make their ideas or words unworthy. But
it does reduce the desire to communicate with the like of you.


I admit to being rude, and on occasion I can be very
foolish. But good manners or no, I think this little
controversy has been blown way out of proportion, and
I will continue to think so until Zhang Zhong weighs
in with his opinion; if in fact, he cares at all.
In my opinion, it is "small-minded people" (in contrast
with broad minded people) who instigate these things.

I think the nick-names I given my two opponents are
humorous and I wouldn't mind if they hung one on me
in response. They aren't obscene and only mildly
derogatory. One should wear a thick skin if one wishes
to speak in public. And after all, what's in a name?"



Yes, I rather feared that you might have meant that very post. Did you fail to
notice the rest of that particular subthread? If you did, then that might
explain, if not excuse, your apparently having failed to recognise the
distinction between Briarroot's agreeing good-naturedly with your assessment,
as you have just asserted, and his *appearing* to acquiesce, while remaining
determined to continue his propensity to "good-natured" ignorant, offensive,
racist vituperation...

Notwithstanding my having continued to reinforce Bourbaki's point, *and yours
too* that he was being rude and disrespectful, Briarroot, far from expressing
regret for his rudeness, glorified in his lack of respect for Chinese naming
conventions (which he continues to do more than two months later). Is that
*really* "good-natured agreement" with your assessment? (I paraphrased you,
clearly).

It's true that *not everything* that Briarroot has written has been

ignorant,
stupid, vituperative and generally moronic, but it's equally true that

*almost
everything* he has written has matched that very description. What was the
exception which proved the rule?




Anyway, a few threads have become the rgcm equivalent of Jerry Springer.
Unfortunately, if I happen to scroll past them, I tune in for a few
minutes of disgust and loathing.



Are you seriously arguing that Briarroot's many ignorant and offensive

posts do
not fit your apt description?


The best thing about USENET is that everyone has a voice. And the worst
thing about USENET is that everyone has a voice.


"Two countries will go to war and one of them will win." Woody Allen.

You didn't answer my question. Of course, it's not compulsory. The second-best
thing about USENET is that people can evade direct questions. The second-worst
thing about USENET is that people can evade direct questions. Briarroot is
well-practised at this, yet it does him no credit.

IMHO the participants have by and large forgotten the issues that began
the threads and are spending a lot of time positioning themselves as
favourably as possible in a pig-wresting contest. Unfortunate.


And for those who forgot, the original issues in the thread a
1. Zhang Zhong appears prepared to make a splash on the world scene, and
2. It is polite to use a person's name correctly.


Right. Briarroot continues *vehemently* to disagree with your second point,
which makes one wonder, again, why you didn't answer my earlier question about
whether or not you are seriously arguing


John



Indeed it is unfortunate, but so is providing trolls with ammuntion to

pursue a
divide-and-rule strategy. Kindly refrain from doing so in the future, or

you
certainly *will* become *more* embroiled in flame wars...


PS When did NoMoreChess get so sensible?



He DID? When? Where?


He been quite astute all weekend, I think. He targeted Briarroot on
Friday, and gave you a couple of gentle cuffs on Saturday.

Best
Mark


Always a pleasure.

John


Right back atcha.

Mark
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice Bill Brock rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 60 September 12th 03 01:40 PM
Nick Bourbaki's many lies Nick rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 30 July 30th 03 06:45 AM
Nick Bourbaki's many lies Nick rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 7 July 18th 03 09:42 PM
Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice Briarroot rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 21 July 16th 03 01:17 AM
Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice Vince Hart rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 July 11th 03 09:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.