Dear Mr. Bourbaki,

Heil Dubya!

I value your personal respect greatly -- because ALMOST invariably we are in
agreement concerning fundamental human values -- and I CERTAINLY do not wish a
public argument with you. What I am about to say, therefore, should be viewed
as explanation, NOT as confrontation.

I responded to "Michael Adams" merely to point out that (s)he/it could not
speak for me and, while I was at it, to clarify my own position somewhat
concerning nationality and the (in my opinion) proper (precise) use of the
English language. One of my important goals is to get humans -- especially
those who use the English language -- to think in human terms (as opposed to
thinking in bourgeois European terms). Thus, I refuse to "talk down" to the
ignorant (or to bow down to the vile) by using language that implies Europe is
the "center" of the world and the most important part of the human species.

Thus, I was not thinking of your TRUE position, but only of what had been
posted by Adams. I don't know whether you have noticed, but I rarely respond
to the Adams-Briarroot-Hanke-StanB-et. al-"axis of evil". (Please note that I
specifically exclude "nomorechess" from this grouping. I believe that you and
I disagree on his realtionships to you, the "axis of evil" and questions of
"truth".) They ALMOST NEVER are worth the time and/or the effort, in
themselves. When I DO respond to one of them, it ALMOST ALWAYS is to make a
point to others, rather than to a member of the "axis of evil". On more than
one occasion, I have suggested the same policy to you, but accept that you
disagree with my judgment in this matter. (You certainly are entitled to your
position on this. As the French saying goes, "Ecco la vita.")

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

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld


gens una sumus

From: ospam (Jerome Bibuld)
Date: 05/08/03 06:39 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Dear Mr. Bourbaki,

snip

I value your personal respect greatly -- because ALMOST invariably we are
in
agreement concerning fundamental human values -- and I CERTAINLY do not wish
a
public argument with you. What I am about to say, therefore, should be
viewed
as explanation, NOT as confrontation.

I responded to "Michael Adams" merely to point out that (s)he/it could not
speak for me and, while I was at it, to clarify my own position somewhat
concerning nationality and the (in my opinion) proper (precise) use of the
English language. One of my important goals is to get humans -- especially
those who use the English language -- to think in human terms (as opposed to
thinking in bourgeois European terms). Thus, I refuse to "talk down" to the
ignorant (or to bow down to the vile) by using language that implies Europe
is
the "center" of the world and the most important part of the human species.

Thus, I was not thinking of your TRUE position, but only of what had been
posted by Adams. I don't know whether you have noticed, but I rarely respond
to the Adams-Briarroot-Hanke-StanB-et. al-"axis of evil". (Please note that
I
specifically exclude "nomorechess" from this grouping. I believe that you
and
I disagree on his realtionships to you, the "axis of evil" and questions of
"truth".) They ALMOST NEVER are worth the time and/or the effort, in
themselves. When I DO respond to one of them, it ALMOST ALWAYS is to make a
point to others, rather than to a member of the "axis of evil". On more than
one occasion, I have suggested the same policy to you, but accept that you
disagree with my judgment in this matter. (You certainly are entitled to
your
position on this. As the French saying goes, "Ecco la vita.")


I am no linguist, but to this ignoramus that doesn't seem French, rather, it
appears to have originated from Europe's boot....

snip

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld


gens una sumus


Dear Mr. Bibuld,

Leaving aside those parts which I have snipped, this was (by the high standards
which you set for yourself) a customarily fine post.

mens una sumus

Mark

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message ...
Dear Mr. Bourbaki,
I value your personal respect greatly -- because ALMOST invariably we are in
agreement concerning fundamental human values

'Perhaps the most delightful friendships are those in which there
is much agreement, much disputation, and yet more personal liking.'
--George Eliot (Felix Holt)

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

Thanks very much for writing. I am touched to learn of the great
value that you place on my personal respect. And I hope that you
have found some of my writings here to be of value to you.

-- and I CERTAINLY do not wish a public argument with you. What I am about
to say, therefore, should be viewed as explanation, NOT as confrontation.

'One learns a great deal from a mere tone.'
--Rudyard Kipling (Captains Courageous)

I understand, and you need not have any worries on that account.
As my time to write here allows, I have been ready to discuss
honestly any perceived differences between us, without taking
any personal offence.

'The growing good of the world is partly dependent on
unhistoric acts.'
--George Eliot (Middlemarch)

I responded to "Michael Adams" merely to point out that (s)he/it could not
speak for me and, while I was at it, to clarify my own position somewhat
concerning nationality and the (in my opinion) proper (precise) use of the
English language. One of my important goals is to get humans -- especially
those who use the English language -- to think in human terms (as opposed to
thinking in bourgeois European terms). Thus, I refuse to "talk down" to the
ignorant (or to bow down to the vile) by using language that implies Europe
is the "center" of the world and the most important part of the human species.

'Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so.'
--Bertrand Russell

I have read several student papers on history that have made
broad statements to the effect that, prior to Germany's invasion
of Poland on 1 September 1939, the whole world must have been at
peace because "everyone knows" that's when the Second World War
began--"officially". But for whom? Not everyone.

I have been irked by the normal Eurocentric presumption that the
Second World War *must* have begun *only* in September 1939
because that's when Germany, Poland, France, and the United
Kingdom and the Commonwealth nations entered the conflict.
But Japan had invaded China (again) in July 1937, and, prior to
September 1939, several million Chinese had already been killed
(more than the number of Europeans who were killed in 1939-40).

For further reading:
"The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics"
by George Joseph (2000 edition: Princeton University Press)

'Informal language on formal subjects is altogether contrary
to logic.'
--Sylvester Judd (Margaret)

To some extent, I have had to compromise my scholarly standards of
discourse whenever I write in a more popular medium, such as here.

"Walter Laqueur, 'The Terrible Secret: Suppression of the Truth
About Hitler's 'Final Solution'' (London, 1980), provides a
meticulous documentation and analysis of the problem of acceptance
and belief. Laqueur notes that 'Holocaust' is a 'singularly
inappropriate' term for the genocidal policies of the Nazis toward
the Jews. Its meaning--to bring a wholly burnt offering--is
inapplicable....See also the account of the term's evolution in
Geoff Eley, 'Holocaust History', 'London Review of Books',
March 3-17, 1982, pp. 6-9. Eley argues that the term's religious
overtones remain in a transmuted form, now implying 'a certain
mystification, an insistence on the uniquely Jewish character of
the experience'....As a non-Jewish, secular historian, I find
Laqueur's reservations unanswerable, and for this reason avoid
the use of the term 'Holocaust' in the present work."
--Richard Evans (In Hitler's Shadow, 1989, p. 142)

I concur with Richard Evans's reservations about the usage of
'Holocaust'. Yet, perhaps for pragmatic reasons, Evans seems to
have at least modified, if not abandoned, his earlier reservations:
his recent book, "Lying About Hitler" (2001), does use the term
'Holocaust' routinely.

'The essence of compromise is littleness.'
--Benjamin Disraeli (Sybil)

Thus, I was not thinking of your TRUE position, but only of what had been
posted by Adams. I don't know whether you have noticed, but I rarely
respond to the Adams-Briarroot-Hanke-StanB-et. al-"axis of evil".

'A man cannot be too careful in his choice of enemies.'
--Oscar Wilde

"In view of the mass of documentation extant, the present book
does not deal with neofascist attempts to deny the reality of
Nazism's crimes. Such denials are the product of political
fanaticism, not of serious investigation, and are not
susceptible to rational argument."
--Richard Evans (In Hitler's Shadow, p. 143)

"Nazism's crimes" are not the only crimes whose realities are
being denied by some neo-Fascists today.

'Warum schleppt sich blutend, elend,
Unter Kreuzlast der Gerechte,
Waehrend gluecklich als ein Sieger
Trabt auf hohem Ross der Schlechte?'

'Why do just men stagger, bleeding,
Crushed beneath their cross's weight,
While the wicked ride the high horse,
Happy victors blessed by fate?'

--Heinrich Heine (Zum Lazarus)

(Please note that I specifically exclude "nomorechess" from this grouping.
I believe that you and I disagree on his realtionships to you, the "axis of
evil" and questions of "truth".)

I also do *not* include Greg Kennedy ("NoMorechess") with your
"axis in evil" with regard *only to his political opinions*.
I believe that Greg Kennedy generally has his heart in the right
place in his dispute with "Briarroot", who wrote in the thread
"OT Dresden teapots" (17 August 2003): "What I did was point out
the obvious; that if all of the enemy are dead, then the war is
over and can be considered to have been successfully concluded..."
To "Briarroot", evidently, "the obvious" is: genocide = victory
(at least if it's done in the name of the United States).

Here's a link to information on the Genocide Convention:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/

But Greg Kennedy has been quite similar to some members of your
"axis of evil" in *his characteristic methods of distorting posts
in order to make personal attacks* on other writers here. As far
as I know, Greg Kennedy already has done that to at least several
other writers he Louis Blair, Mark Houlsby, John Macnab, Ed
Seedhouse, and 'Southpaw'. Some of his 'victims' already have
responded by adding Greg Kennedy to their 'killfiles'.

In the thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice" (27 July 2003),
*you* recognised that when *you* wrote to "NoMoreChess" about me:
"...You distort his (my) words in order to attack him (me)."

John Macnab, whom Greg Kennedy insisted on calling "Mr. McBad",
has written that Greg Kennedy might be "an adolescent trolling
for a flame war". Regardless of his age, Greg Kennedy has behaved
like someone whose main interest at chess newsgroups is "trolling"
around for "flame wars". And Greg Kennedy's usual methods consist
of distortions, fabrications, or lies.

Here's a link to my post in the thread, "Is 1 e4 e6 now the Freedom
Defense?" (12 July 2003), wherein I responded to Greg Kennedy's
attempts to distort (including his fabrication of the existence of
anonymous critics of mine) a single typo of mine into his 'proof'
that I must be a worthless chess analyst:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20012775

Here's a link to my post in this thread (3 September 2003), wherein
I responded to another dishonest personal attack by Greg Kennedy,
including his *falsely* attributing two statements by *other writers*
to me, which he then proceeded to attack:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2E732DC5

And here's a link to Greg Kennedy's post (9 July 2003) wherein he
apparently makes a detailed 'joke' about how to rape a woman:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G2EF21675

I could hardly care about what Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") writes
as long as he leaves my name out of it. If Greg Kennedy would stop
"trolling" me by routinely distorting or lying about what I write,
then I might develop some respect for him.

'Is it the region inside a man, or out, that gives him peace?'
--George Meredith (Beauchamp's Career)

They ALMOST NEVER are worth the time and/or the effort, in themselves.
When I DO respond to one of them, it ALMOST ALWAYS is to make a point to
others, rather than to a member of the "axis of evil".

veritas odium parit (Terence)

That's the same reason for which I sometimes have responded to
them: only "to make a point to others". I don't expect them to
consider seriously what I have written, beyond perhaps seeking
a way to distort it for the purposes of their personal attacks.

For example, I would concur with you that it's become usually not
worth the trouble to respond to personal attacks by "Briarroot"
(who seems deranged). "Briarroot" seemed stuck (as Mark Houlsby
also has observed) in an apparently infinite loop of pathological
lies ("Briarroot" seems to regard his web of mutually referencing
lies and distortions as his "complete proof".) about me:

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

"If the world is unjust, or rash, in one man's case, why may it
not be so in another's?"
--Samuel Richardson (Clarissa)

Whether or not Briarroot's usually ignorant (or 'potted') writings on
history should be addressed here is another matter. For example, in
the thread, "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" (8 August 2003),
when "Briarroot" wrote, "...Even after the first atomic bomb destroyed
Hiroshima, Tojo refused to reconsider..." (surrendering to the United
States), "Briarroot" evidently believed that Tojo was still Japan's
Prime Minister in August 1945. In fact, Tojo and his entire Cabinet
had been removed from office in July 1944. In August 1945, Tojo was
merely a former Prime Minister--living in some disgrace, having been
widely blamed for Japan's many defeats in the war--who evidently had
little, if any, remaining political influence. But most people in the
United States today may be ignorant of that fact of Japanese history.
Yet I should expect that even ordinary undergraduate students of
modern history ought to know at least that much.

"It is a common sentence that Knowledge is power; but who hath
duly considered or set forth the power of Ignorance? Knowledge
slowly builds up what Ignorance in an hour pulls down."
--George Eliot (Daniel Deronda)

On more than one occasion, I have suggested the same policy to you, but
accept that you disagree with my judgment in this matter. You certainly
are entitled to your position on this.

"The whole conduct of war is like the action of a complicated
machine, with an immense amount of friction, so that combinations
which are easily made on paper can only be carried into execution
by very great exertions."
--Carl von Clausewitz (Vom Kriege)

Actually, I do appreciate your advice, and I don't necessarily
disagree with your judgment. I am comparatively new to writing
on Usenet, and I don't always know the best way to handle 'trolls'
who keep making personal attacks on me. I don't know for certain
that there's always only one best way to deal with those
situations--that might depend on each situation.

Moreover, when I began writing here, I was in quite a different
position from yours at that time. You have been writing here as
someone who has been long well-known for his many activities in
the real world of chess. For better or for worse, your general
reputation had been established; my reputation here had yet to be
made. Now my writings here seem to have become respected by some
of the more thoughtful readers, and I do appreciate knowing that.

"Does the road wind uphill all the way?
Yes, to the very end."
--Christine Rosetti

--Nick

Nick (The Liar) wrote:

For example, I would concur with you that it's become usually not
worth the trouble to respond to personal attacks by "Briarroot"
(who seems deranged). "Briarroot" seemed stuck (as Mark Houlsby
also has observed) in an apparently infinite loop of pathological
lies ("Briarroot" seems to regard his web of mutually referencing
lies and distortions as his "complete proof".) about me:

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

A) You did lie
B) I demonstrated just how you did this
C) Houlsby's so-called "evidence" was nothing of the sort
D) You continue to lie about the whole affair

No amount of repetition will change these facts. You are guilty
of using the very tactics which you claim that I am using.
Check your mirror.


Whether or not Briarroot's usually ignorant (or 'potted') writings on
history should be addressed here is another matter. For example, in
the thread, "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" (8 August 2003),
when "Briarroot" wrote, "...Even after the first atomic bomb destroyed
Hiroshima, Tojo refused to reconsider..." (surrendering to the United
States), "Briarroot" evidently believed that Tojo was still Japan's
Prime Minister in August 1945. In fact, Tojo and his entire Cabinet
had been removed from office in July 1944. In August 1945, Tojo was
merely a former Prime Minister--living in some disgrace, having been
widely blamed for Japan's many defeats in the war--who evidently had
little, if any, remaining political influence. But most people in the
United States today may be ignorant of that fact of Japanese history.
Yet I should expect that even ordinary undergraduate students of
modern history ought to know at least that much.

I expect that most undergraduates know that even though Tojo was
no longer Prime Minister, he continued to control the government
of Japan using his associates within the army hierarchy.
Assassination was one of the tools his group used to maintain their
control. Prime Minister Koiso was far to weak a personality, and had
no base of power of his own to compete with Tojo's group.

Of course, you avoided my point in the post you quoted, a typical
tactic of the liar that you are. The point of that post was that
Japan was not going to surrender, even after the 1st atomic bomb
was dropped. The die-hard reactionaries in charge of Japan would
have much preferred to have their entire nation consumed in the
carnage that would have ensued after a US invasion. Their warped
sense of honor made them willing to sacrifice their own people
on the altar of what they thought of as glory. The Emperor's
intervention prevented this from occurring, but (much like Hitler
in the final days of the Third Reich) Tojo would have preferred to
leave nothing but a charred wasteland to mark the passing of
Imperial Japan.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that a leftist (and blatant
liar) like you would prefer that these facts were not become
common knowledge.