-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ...
From: "StanB"
Date: 25/07/03 13:41 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:
What do you expect from some guy whose pidgin English is limited to
plagiarizing a lot of belles-lettres.
StanB

What you've written here, Stan, is a contradiction in terms.

Dear Mr. Houlsby,

Whatever his personal failings, such as his racism, StanB is a proudly
flag-waving white American. Accordingly, StanB seems to be considered
"one of our own" by his fellow American political activists here and
consequently perhaps beyond reproach from any outsiders such as you or me.

As a literary critic, StanB has made an ad hominem attack on Samuel Johnson
as well as on me. I consider myself honoured to have been placed in Doctor
Johnson's good company.

--Nick

..
Whatever his personal failings, such as his racism, StanB is a proudly
flag-waving white American. Accordingly, StanB seems to be considered
"one of our own" by his fellow American political activists here


Read that again, *very carefully.*

Mr. Bourbaki is, for some reason or other, assumming that Stan Booz is
"white" (see above), and that he is "considered one of our own" by his "fellow"
political activists here.

Which is to say, assumming we follow this racist "logic," that *all* the
political activists here are, for no reason whatever, presumed by Nick to be
"white." I'd say this sort of behavior demonstrates an underlying racist
attitude, not to mention considerable ignorance.


"It is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak, and
remove all doubt."




BTW, not everyone here has identical political views, and certainly not every
American political activist here agrees with Stan Booz' "my country, right or
wrong" mindset.
Obviously, Stan Booz -- whatever the shade of his skin happens to be at the
moment -- is far from "beyond reproach" by self-styled "outsiders." The
trouble is, hard evidence of a thing like racism is difficult to come by.
And besides, these petty disputes are not really about principles or virtues,
they are about *pride*.


deadlysins.com

Heil Dubya!

Apparently, "nomorechess" is under the illusion -- or pretending that (s)he is
under the illusion -- that colonials spit out racist phrases similar to those
of their United Statesian oppressors. This has not been my experience. On the
contrary, aside from the outright sellouts -- such as Ms. Rice and General
Powell -- I NEVER have met a colonial subject of the United States who has
spouted a SINGLE racist attack on ANYONE. Of course, I haven't met all 100
million (or more) colonials within the military control of the United States,
in the the fifty States and the District of Columbia, but I'd be inclined to go
along with the idea that all racist lies emitted from within those borders
comes from United Statesians and other Europeans.

Not that Mr. Bourbaki has stated what I have said in the last sentence. You
distort his words in order to attack him. However, I merely take the
opportunity to accept your straw man and to attack IT. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a
colonial to be racist, since racism is a societal crime and one must be a
citizen of the colonial power (in this case, the U. S. A.) in order to be
racist. By definition, colonials are NOT citizens of the colonial power, but
SUBJECTS and, therefore, cannot be racist.

(Please note that I have called NO ONE "white" or "black", because NO ONE is
either "white" or "black".)

Whatever his personal failings, such as his racism, StanB is a proudly
flag-waving white American. Accordingly, StanB seems to be considered
"one of our own" by his fellow American political activists here


Read that again, *very carefully.*

Mr. Bourbaki is, for some reason or other, assumming that Stan Booz is
"white" (see above), and that he is "considered one of our own" by his
"fellow"
political activists here.

Which is to say, assumming we follow this racist "logic," that *all* the
political activists here are, for no reason whatever, presumed by Nick to be
"white." I'd say this sort of behavior demonstrates an underlying racist
attitude, not to mention considerable ignorance.


"It is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak, and
remove all doubt."




BTW, not everyone here has identical political views, and certainly not
every
American political activist here agrees with Stan Booz' "my country, right or
wrong" mindset.
Obviously, Stan Booz -- whatever the shade of his skin happens to be at the
moment -- is far from "beyond reproach" by self-styled "outsiders." The
trouble is, hard evidence of a thing like racism is difficult to come by.
And besides, these petty disputes are not really about principles or virtues,
they are about *pride*.


deadlysins.com

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

..
Can Mr. Bibuld rephrase all that nonsense into plain English?

It is strange to see so much jibberish about "colonial subjects" and bizarre
attempts to obfuscate the issues by needlessly redefining terms, followed by
senseless claims about strawmen.
If you want to claim there is a strawman, you need to stand your ground and
stop shifting about by redefining key terms to suit your every whim Such
redefinitions (which were not spelled out clearly, by the way), only serve to
confuse the issue.
..
My position on this is that I detected that which exists in reality:
assumptions which clearly indicated underlying racism. Mr. Bourbacki had no
reason to merely assume that his critics and other so-called "activists" here
are all white -- yet assume this he did.




(Please note that I have called NO ONE "white" or "black", because NO ONE is
either "white" or "black".)


Well, a true *albino* is basically white, having no pigmentation, even in the
eyes.



Another issue is the not-so clever attempt by Mr. Bourbaki to portray himself
and his lickspittle, Mary Houlsby, as hapless outsiders, whose criticisms are
unwelcomed by a cohesive group of racist, flag-waving, all-white, political
hacks -- er, no, make that activists. Preposterous. I don't even own a flag,
so I can neither burn nor wave. And even Nick's lickspittle, Mark Houlsby, has
recognised the fact that I have repeatedly scolded Stan Booz -- among others --
for his *ad hominem* attacks on Nick Bourbaki. That is hardly cohesive, nor
homogenous, especially when you consider the wide spectrum of critics which
have emerged to lash out at these two for their nonproductive name-calling
(racist! liar! racist! liar!).




Apparently, "nomorechess" is under the illusion -- or pretending
that (s)he is


Political correctness is a bear, isn't it? LOL

From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 28/07/03 05:50 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

.
Can Mr. Bibuld rephrase all that nonsense into plain English?

It is strange to see so much jibberish about "colonial subjects" and
bizarre
attempts to obfuscate the issues by needlessly redefining terms, followed by
senseless claims about strawmen.
If you want to claim there is a strawman, you need to stand your ground
and
stop shifting about by redefining key terms to suit your every whim Such
redefinitions (which were not spelled out clearly, by the way), only serve to
confuse the issue.
.
My position on this is that I detected that which exists in reality:
assumptions which clearly indicated underlying racism. Mr. Bourbacki had no
reason to merely assume that his critics and other so-called "activists" here
are all white -- yet assume this he did.


He did no such thing. He *deduced* it. Which of these people is *not*
caucasian?

snips much nonsense including the already-refuted part about my being Nick's
lickspittle

Bourbaki's opponents have *only* vituperation and lies at their disposal. They
have *no* facts.

Bourbaki has *deduced* the *fact* that those who are making these unprovoked
attacks upon him are all white.

If you can *prove* (i.e. with evidence which would stand up in a court of law)
that either StanB or Briarroot are *not* white then Bourbaki's argument is
screwed, and he looks like a jackass (not for the first time).

If, on the other hand, StanB and Briarroot *are* white, then that *proves*
that, in this case, Bourbaki's acuity, once again, is the greater...

Mark

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
Nick wrote (to Mark Houlsby):
Whatever his personal failings, such as his racism, StanB is a proudly
flag-waving white American. Accordingly, StanB seems to be considered
"one of our own" by his fellow American political activists here

Read that again, *very carefully.*

"Some boys are born stupid; some achieve stupidity; some have stupidity
thrust upon them."
--Samuel Butler (The Way of All Flesh)

NoMoreChess does belong to one of those classes of stupidity, though I cannot
be certain of which one.

Mr. Bourbaki is, for some reason or other, assumming that Stan Booz is
"white" (see above), and that he is "considered one of our own" by his
"fellow" political activists here.

NoMoreChess has misunderstood or distorted what I meant by writing "fellow".
(For the record, he cut the adjective "American" from "fellow political
activists", and he changed my verb "seems to be" to "is".)

In my phrase, "his *fellow* American political activists here", "fellow"
refers *only* to those American political activists here (such as Tim Hanke
and Briarroot) who evidently *share StanB's beliefs* on such widely debated
issues here as American racism and imperialism, *not* specific USCF issues,
of which, as I already have stated, I have no interest and no opinion.

In short, my phrase, "his fellow American political activists here", refers
*only* to Stan Booz's political comrades ("fellows") on the extreme American
right-wing here. I have no doubt that those Americans (such as Tim Hanke
and Briarroot) seem to consider Stan Booz as "one of (their) own".

Which is to say, assumming we follow this racist "logic," that *all* the
political activists here are, for no reason whatever, presumed by Nick to be
"white." I'd say this sort of behavior demonstrates an underlying racist
attitude, not to mention considerable ignorance.

NoMoreChess's attack on me is utterly ludicrous, baseless, and dishonest.

Is NoMoreChess *seriously* contending that Stan Booz (StanB) is *not* a
white American? NoMoreChess also makes the baseless accusation that I presumed
that "all the (NoMoreChess cut my significant adjective, "American") political
activists here" are white. I presumed nothing of that kind, and I did not
write anything that implied that I did believe that.

Stan Booz is a widely known writer in these chess newsgroups, and he's also
well-known in USCF circles, particularly around Pennsylvania. And it's common
knowledge that Stan Booz is a white American (an American of European descent).
I have been informed of that fact by someone who has met Stan Booz in person.
Hence, it's a statement of fact, *not* a racist assumption (as NoMoreChess
has claimed), that Stan Booz is a white American. And I doubt that StanB
would object to my further characterisation of him as "proudly flag-waving".

Contrary to NoMoreChess's baseless claim that I have been practising "racist
'logic'", it's an empirical fact that Stan Booz is a white American. (For
the sake of a working definition here, a "white American" is someone who's
generally perceived by other Americans as an American of European descent.)
Would NoMoreChess accuse me of practising "racist 'logic'" if I were to write
that GM Maurice Ashley (whom I have met in person) is an African American?

Moreover, on some previous occasions, when responding StanB's posts that
included racist comments aimed *only* at non-whites, I have described Stan
Booz as a "white American". And Stan Booz *never* has expressed any objection
to the accuracy of my characterisation of him as a "white American".

If Stan Booz had ever written to me, hypothetically:
"Nick, you are mistaken. I am not a white American; I am an African American."
Then I would have replied:
"Stan, I am sorry for what I wrote about you. Now what do you really think
about 'Bwana' (as you tend to say) Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court?"

So here's Stan Booz's opportunity to proclaim his pride in his African
American heritage--if it exists--to the world! :-)

"It is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak, and
remove all doubt."

NoMoreChess is a frequent example of that when he writes here.
'dulce est desipere in loco' (Horace)

BTW, not everyone here has identical political views, and certainly not every
American political activist here agrees with Stan Booz' "my country, right or
wrong" mindset.

Does NoMoreChess really believe that I was unaware of Jerome Bibuld's political
views of the United States and how greatly they differ from Stan Booz's?

Obviously, Stan Booz -- whatever the shade of his skin happens to be at the
moment -- is far from "beyond reproach" by self-styled "outsiders."

Is NoMoreChess suggesting that Stan Booz could change his racial identity
in the United States at a future moment?

Characteristically, NoMoreChess has snipped my original statement in order
to make it easier for him to describe it in distorted form for the purposes
of his attack against it.

Here's what I wrote to Mark Houlsby:
"Accordingly, StanB seems to be considered 'one of our own' by his fellow
American political activists here and consequently perhaps beyond reproach
from any outsiders such as you or me."

That meant only that Stan Booz's "fellow American political activists here"
(such as Tim Hanke and Briarroot) would consider him "perhaps beyond
reproach" by Mark Houlsby and me, who definitely don't belong, as they do,
to the extreme American political right-wing.

The trouble is, hard evidence of a thing like racism is difficult to come
by. And besides, these petty disputes are not really about principles or
virtues, they are about *pride*.

Does NoMoreChess really believe that every view has approximately equivalent
merit, regardless of how much, if any, evidence supports it?

Robert Faurisson (the real one) should be pleased by that perspective,
which places the best scholarly historians of modern Germany and "Holocaust
revisionists/deniers" on an approximately equivalent footing of plausibility.

"I don't believe or disbelieve anything I don't understand."
--Gertrude Atherton (Senator North)

--Nick

..
NoMoreChess does belong to one of those classes of stupidity, though I cannot
be certain of which one.


Puerile name-calling from Mr. Bourbaki -- impressive!

Those who foolishly believed his repertoire was limited to filibuster,
strawmen, and ad hominem, are looking quite silly right about now for having
seriously "misunderestimated" a Britt!



In my phrase, "his *fellow* American political activists here", "fellow"
refers *only* to those American political activists here (such as Tim Hanke
and Briarroot)


I think Nick was trying to *dismiss* his (and Mark's) critics here by
painting them all the same color.

In fact, there have been criticisms here by non-flagwaving-rightwingers, who
couldn't care less where Nick (or Mark Houlsby) are from.
So the "outsider" defense simply fails, although Nick has now apparently
decided that he was only talking about his three most annoying critics. It is
only they who perturb him by shunning him as an outsider.




who evidently *share StanB's beliefs* on such widely debated
issues here as American racism and imperialism,


Some of Nick's critics have objected to his many, longwinded off-topic posts.
I am not one of them, but I couldn't help but laugh when I saw how Nick
brazenly scolded an unwelcome critic for posting off-topic, and even for
violating some convention forbidding crossposts! LOL!

Double-standards. Hyppocrisy. Ad hominem. A fine trio, indeed. And I
would also add pettiness, for the spelling corrections.


If Nick Bourbaki wants my advice, it would be to think twice before attacking
his unwelcome critics for "crimes" of which he is not merely guilty himself,
but of which he "sets the standard" here, by which other such posters may be
judged!



(Nick's many strawmen mercy-killed via snippage)



So here's Stan Booz's opportunity to proclaim his pride in his African
American heritage--if it exists--to the world!


Alas, although Michael Jackson may have been able to undergo sufficient
surgery to approximate a race-change, Mr. Booz has neither the money, nor I
suspect, the inclination to go under the knife!



And besides, these petty disputes are not really about principles or
virtues, they are about *pride*.


deadlysins.com





"You lied!"

"No, I proved that YOU were the one who lied."

"Nope. Unuh. YOU lied."

"Sorry, Charlie -- it was YOU who lied."


Somebody called Dr. Mensan pointed out something about this pattern, but it
looks as though everyone else had already killfiled him, and I alone read it.
That being the case, it should be quite safe for me to start an e-game with the
good Doctor, as nobody but us will "see" the moves:


1.h4


(Wait! what's your rating? Had I known that, I would have played
differently.)

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ...
From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 28/07/03 05:50 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:
My position on this is that I detected that which exists in reality:
assumptions which clearly indicated underlying racism. Mr. Bourbacki had
no reason to merely assume that his critics and other so-called "activists"
here are all white -- yet assume this he did.

He did no such thing. He *deduced* it. Which of these people is *not*
caucasian?

For the record, my original post in this subthread (26 July 2003) described
*only* StanB as "a proudly flag-waving white American", and that post did
*not* mention any other names here. Also, I did *not* have to 'deduce' that
StanB's white; I was informed of that fact by someone who has met Stan Booz
in person. Stan Booz is rather well-known in USCF circles, and I have some
sources of information among American chess-players.

Bourbaki's opponents have *only* vituperation and lies at their disposal.
They have *no* facts.

That statement always has been true. And, in addition to Mark Houlsby,
some readers here seem to have been able to recognise it too, at least to
the extent that they have written their public appreciations of my posts:

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

Bill Brock (10 July 2003)
"Bravo. I concur with all your major points."

Jerzy Ciruk (5 August 2003)
"You are absolutely right." (about the Soviet media's coverage of Kasparov)

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (11 May 2003)
"And I am American in much much more important ways too. But I felt
entertained and amused by your posts and quotes, it was nice."

John Macnab (17 May 2003)
"Great story! Thanks."

George Mirijanian (12 June 2003)
"I agree with Nick." (on my translation of 'gens una sumus')

Simon Spivack (31 May 2003)
"He (I) is a welcome regular contributor to this group."

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

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

For example, like software with a fatal bug, "Briarroot" has been operating
while stuck in an apparently infinite loop of pathological lies about me.

1) "Briarroot" lies about me.
2) I or Mark Houlsby cite the evidence to prove that "Briarroot" lied.
3a) "Briarroot" completely snips the response(s) and exclaims, "Bull****!" or
3b) "Briarroot" almost completely snips the responses(s) except for one or two
minor parts, which then he distorts and proceeds to attack by another lie.
4) "Briarroot" lies again, often just reiterating an already confuted lie.
Go to step 1.

Bourbaki has *deduced* the *fact* that those who are making these unprovoked
attacks upon him are all white.

1) I know that Tim Hanke is white because I have seen his photograph.
2) I know that Stan Booz is white because I have been informed of that by
someone who has met him in person.
3) I have inferred from his many racist comments here directed only against
non-whites that "Briarroot" is white.

If you can *prove* (i.e. with evidence which would stand up in a court of law)
that either StanB or Briarroot are *not* white then Bourbaki's argument is
screwed...

I have been ready to write a statement of regret if either Stan Booz or
"Briarroot" (or Tim Hanke) were to proclaim here that he's definitely *not*
white, though I don't know what effect that news might have on their families.

If, on the other hand, StanB and Briarroot *are* white, then that *proves*
that, in this case, Bourbaki's acuity, once again, is the greater.

Perhaps Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") should get a new telescope? :-)

"The eye only sees that which brings with it the power of seeing."
--Charles Kingsley (Alton Locke)

--Nick

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:
(snipped by NoMoreChess)
NoMoreChess does belong to one of those classes of stupidity, though
I cannot be certain of which one.

Puerile name-calling from Mr. Bourbaki -- impressive!

That was not just "name-calling". What Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") has
ignored is the evidence of his stupidity in this case.

1) I wrote that StanB is a "white American".
2) NoMoreChess wrote that I had made an ignorant assumption, characterised
by underlying racism, because I had written that StanB is white.
3) In fact, Stan Booz is rather well-known in USCF circles. And I had been
informed that StanB *is* white by someone who has met him in person.

NoMoreChess was quite stupid because he failed to consider the possibilities
that I could have the means to identify StanB as white without having to make
any "ignorant assumptions" about him at all.

Nick wrote:
In my phrase, "his *fellow* American political activists here", "fellow"
refers *only* to those American political activists here (such as Tim Hanke
and Briarroot)

Here's what came after that in my original post to NoMoreChess:

"...who evidently *share StanB's beliefs* on such widely debated issues here
as American racism and imperialism, *not* specific USCF issues, of which, as
I already have stated, I have no interest and no opinion. In short, my phrase,
"his fellow American political activists here", refers *only* to Stan Booz's
political comrades ("fellows") on the extreme American right-wing here...."

I think Nick was trying to *dismiss* his (and Mark's) critics here by
painting them all the same color.

NoMoreChess has misunderstood what I wrote or distorted what I meant.

Also, for the record, I was writing only on my behalf, *not* on behalf of
Mark Houlsby. I have nothing to do with whatever Mr. Houlsby decides
to write here. And I do *not* necessarily concur with what Mr. Houlsby
writes to other people here.

In fact, there have been criticisms here by non-flagwaving-rightwingers,
who couldn't care less where Nick (or Mark Houlsby) are from.

As far as I know, that may be true in the case of Mark Houlsby.
But can NoMoreChess name such critics--apart from Tim Hanke, Stan Booz,
and "Briarroot"--in my case? NoMoreChess' other comments warrant no response.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
om...

Nick.....seriously......you gotta let this thread DIE.

Though I don't always agree with you, you seem to be quite an intelligent
individual. Please just let whatever Greg, Stan, "Biarroot", and whomever
else said go. Really....the horse has been dead for quite some time now.

Regards,

Matt