Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice

#1 July 29th 03, 03:57 AM

From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 29/07/03 03:49 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

.
Nick Bourbaki's lickspittle, Dork Holes-by mumbled:

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).

While my "help" may be quite unnecessary for that, I will point out that my
quote of Nick's statement in no way referred to only Stan Booz and Briarroot,
as Mr. Lickspittle has it. Obviously, this *distortion* is the result of a
lack
of reading skill by Dorkus, who is in a tizzy over his hero having been hoist
on his own petard.

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...

I have no doubt that Mr. Bourbaki's acuity is far greater than thine own,
but
this is not really an issue. And it hardly matters what race, creed, or
color
Nick's two most annoying critics may be. These guys would be just as
annoying, in nice shades of red, green, or yellow. Or red, white, and blue.

BTW, it was Nick who asserted that *all* the critics and (American)
political
activists here were ganging up on him unfairly because he was an "outsider,"
and it was also Nick who explained that they did this because they were all
white, flag-waving, psuedo-patriotic American racists. I don't agree. Not
entirely, that is.
A few of Nick's critics do not fit that mold. Some of them were not
motivated by Nick's alleged status as an "outsider," and in fact, have no
interest in where he is from. They simply found fault with something he
wrote,
and got carelessly tossed into a bucket with the others by Nick, who
mislabelled them all the same.

Which of these people is *not* caucasian?

I wouldn't know. Do you track such things for Nick? May I suggest some
additional tracking questions:

1.Which of you are not Christians?
2.Which of you are not Republicans?
3.Which of you are not high-rated?
4.Which of you are not Sicilian players?
5.Which of you are over the hill?
6.Which of you suck in the endgame?

Don't worry, Nick and his lickspittle will not use this info for any
purpose
other than their ad hominem attacks,

Give an example of one of these, if you please...

here on these newsgroups. Your
information is perfectly safe, and will never be divulged or sold to others.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Ok then, name *any* of Bourbaki's non-White vociferous vituperative critics...

#2 July 29th 03, 04:47 PM

*sigh*

new newsgroup please: rec.games.chess.politics

On 29 Jul 2003 02:57:20 GMT, Mhoulsby -remove- wrote:
From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 29/07/03 03:49 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

.
Nick Bourbaki's lickspittle, Dork Holes-by mumbled:

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).

While my "help" may be quite unnecessary for that, I will point out that my
quote of Nick's statement in no way referred to only Stan Booz and Briarroot,
as Mr. Lickspittle has it. Obviously, this *distortion* is the result of a
lack
of reading skill by Dorkus, who is in a tizzy over his hero having been hoist
on his own petard.

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...

I have no doubt that Mr. Bourbaki's acuity is far greater than thine own,
but
this is not really an issue. And it hardly matters what race, creed, or
color
Nick's two most annoying critics may be. These guys would be just as
annoying, in nice shades of red, green, or yellow. Or red, white, and blue.

BTW, it was Nick who asserted that *all* the critics and (American)
political
activists here were ganging up on him unfairly because he was an "outsider,"
and it was also Nick who explained that they did this because they were all
white, flag-waving, psuedo-patriotic American racists. I don't agree. Not
entirely, that is.
A few of Nick's critics do not fit that mold. Some of them were not
motivated by Nick's alleged status as an "outsider," and in fact, have no
interest in where he is from. They simply found fault with something he
wrote,
and got carelessly tossed into a bucket with the others by Nick, who
mislabelled them all the same.

Which of these people is *not* caucasian?

I wouldn't know. Do you track such things for Nick? May I suggest some
additional tracking questions:

1.Which of you are not Christians?
2.Which of you are not Republicans?
3.Which of you are not high-rated?
4.Which of you are not Sicilian players?
5.Which of you are over the hill?
6.Which of you suck in the endgame?

Don't worry, Nick and his lickspittle will not use this info for any
purpose
other than their ad hominem attacks,

Give an example of one of these, if you please...

here on these newsgroups. Your
information is perfectly safe, and will never be divulged or sold to others.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Ok then, name *any* of Bourbaki's non-White vociferous vituperative critics...

#3 July 29th 03, 04:54 PM

From: ()
Date: 29/07/03 16:47 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

*sigh*

new newsgroup please: rec.games.chess.politics

I heartily agree with you, Phil. This is what I have been saying to these
trolls *for months*. Why does *anybody* support them with their continuous,
flagrant abuses of these groups?

Thanks for your post. More of the same, please...

Best
Mark

#4 August 26th 03, 11:20 PM

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ...
From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 29/07/03 03:49 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:
(snipped)
While my "help" may be quite unnecessary for that, I will point out that my
quote of Nick's statement in no way referred to only Stan Booz and Briarroot,
as Mr. Lickspittle has it. Obviously, this *distortion* is the result of a
lack of reading skill by Dorkus, who is in a tizzy over his hero having been
hoist on his own petard.

Dear Mr. Houlsby,

Although occasionally you have misread me, in my authoritative judgement as
the writer, you consistently read my posts more honestly, accurately, and
insightfully than NoMoreChess, as evident by contrasting some of his posts
and yours about mine.

BTW, it was Nick who asserted that *all* the critics and (American)
political activists here were ganging up on him unfairly because he was
an "outsider," and it was also Nick who explained that they did this
because they were all white, flag-waving, psuedo-patriotic American racists.

That's another distortion by NoMoreChess; I made no such assertion.
My statement about StanB and "his *fellow* American political activists here"
was intended to refer *only* to a few writers here who have expressed their
*fellowship* (or agreement) with StanB's jingoistic or racist comments: the
other members of his evident political clique are Tim Hanke and "Briarroot".

I don't agree. Not entirely, that is. A few of Nick's critics do not fit
that mold. Some of them were not motivated by Nick's alleged status as
an "outsider," and in fact, have no interest in where he is from. They
simply found fault with something he wrote, and got carelessly tossed into
a bucket with the others by Nick, who mislabelled them all the same.

Can NoMoreChess name any of these alleged critics of mine (apart from Tim
Hanke, Stan Booz, and "Briarroot") and cite evidence that I have "mislabelled
them all the same"? Who are they? Michael Adams on occasion, perhaps?
He's an Aussie, and I know that he could not be a jingoistic American.

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Which of these people is *not* caucasian?

I wouldn't know. Do you track such things for Nick?
May I suggest some additional tracking questions: (snipped)
Don't worry, Nick and his lickspittle will not use this info for any
purpose other than their ad hominem attacks here on these newsgroups.

Give an example of one of these, if you please.

May silence be considered evidence?

Ok then, name *any* of Bourbaki's non-White vociferous vituperative critics.

May silence be considered evidence?

'He is no fool, but his sense consists chiefly in holding his tongue.'
--from 'Memoirs of an Oxford Scholar' (1756)

--Nick

#5 August 26th 03, 11:30 PM

From: (Nick)
Date: 26/08/03 23:20 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message
...
From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 29/07/03 03:49 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:
(snipped)
While my "help" may be quite unnecessary for that, I will point out that
my
quote of Nick's statement in no way referred to only Stan Booz and
Briarroot,
as Mr. Lickspittle has it. Obviously, this *distortion* is the result of a
lack of reading skill by Dorkus, who is in a tizzy over his hero having
been
hoist on his own petard.

Dear Mr. Houlsby,

Although occasionally you have misread me, in my authoritative judgement as
the writer, you consistently read my posts more honestly, accurately, and
insightfully than NoMoreChess, as evident by contrasting some of his posts
and yours about mine.

Not only have I misread you occasionally, I have sometimes read you accurately,
but (owing chiefly to the scope of my ignorance, which is regrettably
considerable) completely failed to avoid *misinterpreting* what you have
written, particularly with respect to those subjects about which you know more
than I do....

BTW, it was Nick who asserted that *all* the critics and (American)
political activists here were ganging up on him unfairly because he was
an "outsider," and it was also Nick who explained that they did this
because they were all white, flag-waving, psuedo-patriotic American
racists.

That's another distortion by NoMoreChess; I made no such assertion.
My statement about StanB and "his *fellow* American political activists here"

was intended to refer *only* to a few writers here who have expressed their
*fellowship* (or agreement) with StanB's jingoistic or racist comments: the
other members of his evident political clique are Tim Hanke and "Briarroot".

I don't agree. Not entirely, that is. A few of Nick's critics do not fit
that mold. Some of them were not motivated by Nick's alleged status as
an "outsider," and in fact, have no interest in where he is from. They
simply found fault with something he wrote, and got carelessly tossed into
a bucket with the others by Nick, who mislabelled them all the same.

Can NoMoreChess name any of these alleged critics of mine (apart from Tim
Hanke, Stan Booz, and "Briarroot") and cite evidence that I have "mislabelled
them all the same"? Who are they? Michael Adams on occasion, perhaps?
He's an Aussie, and I know that he could not be a jingoistic American.

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Which of these people is *not* caucasian?

I wouldn't know. Do you track such things for Nick?
May I suggest some additional tracking questions: (snipped)
Don't worry, Nick and his lickspittle will not use this info for any
purpose other than their ad hominem attacks here on these newsgroups.

Give an example of one of these, if you please.

May silence be considered evidence?

Ok then, name *any* of Bourbaki's non-White vociferous vituperative
critics.

May silence be considered evidence?

'He is no fool, but his sense consists chiefly in holding his tongue.'

I tried that once, but it made my eyes water....

Mark

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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
Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice	Nick	rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)	1	July 27th 03 04:46 PM
Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice	NoMoreChess	rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)	0	July 26th 03 04:11 AM
Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice	Nick	rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)	0	July 25th 03 05:05 AM
Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice	Vince Hart	rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)	3	July 11th 03 09:37 PM