Briarroot wrote in message ...
So Nick, when are you going to tell us where you're from?

In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), Briarroot wrote
to me: "Now this I readily admit to. You deserve to be insulted, roundly
and repeatedly. I consider it my duty to expose you..."

Anyone who's not deranged should be able to understand why Briarroot's demand
that I reveal personal information to him does not warrant any response beyond
disdain.

We'd really like to see whether the average person in *your*
home country is as ignorant about all the atrocities committed
by *your* governments over the course of its entire history, as
you claim the average American is about American history.
Let's make a comparison, shall we? The readers of r.g.c.m. are
waiting eagerly to thank you for enlightening us about the state
of education in *your* homeland.

Briarroot seems obsessed in his mission to track down my "homeland".
As a jingoistic American, Briarroot seems to believe that I or everyone
else in the world must have similar feelings of national chauvinism.

Here's a suggestion on how Briarroot can fulfill his avowed duty to insult me:
Briarroot could purchase a collection of all national flags in the world.
Then Briarroot could burn every one of them but his own, the United States's.
Briarroot could repeat this procedure until he begins to feel better (or until
more effective medication takes effect).

Caveat: Free medical advice should be heeded at one's own risk.

"Threats are seldom of avail to bring a man back to reason.
One does not become angry with a madman."
--Anthony Trollope (He Knew He Was Right)

--Nick

Nick (The Liar) wrote:

Briarroot wrote in message
...
So Nick, when are you going to tell us where you're from?

In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), Briarroot wrote
to me: "Now this I readily admit to. You deserve to be insulted, roundly
and repeatedly. I consider it my duty to expose you..."

Anyone who's not deranged should be able to understand why Briarroot's
demand
that I reveal personal information to him does not warrant any response
beyond disdain.

Personal information? Stop lying. You know why I want to
know where your from, it's written just below. You continue
to duck the question. We all know why. It doesn't suit your
chosen role as propagandist to allow counterpoint to appear
alongside your list of American crimes.

We'd really like to see whether the average person in *your*
home country is as ignorant about all the atrocities committed
by *your* governments over the course of its entire history, as
you claim the average American is about American history.
Let's make a comparison, shall we? The readers of r.g.c.m. are
waiting eagerly to thank you for enlightening us about the state
of education in *your* homeland.

Briarroot seems obsessed in his mission to track down my "homeland".
As a jingoistic American, Briarroot seems to believe that I or everyone
else in the world must have similar feelings of national chauvinism.

Again, the wily propagandist wishes to introduce a new note to
the discussion: obsession. Who is supposed to be obsessed? Why
little old Briarroot, that's who. Why? Because he refuses to lie
down before Nick's campaign to seemingly list every American war
crime ever committed, or even suggested by the worst revisionists
in print. No one urged Nick to begin this campaign. No, Nick has
told us that he began this to counter what he considers "right-wing,
flag waving, jingoistic, racist Americans" Those are his own words.
Who is the more obsessive? Nick, or me?


Here's a suggestion on how Briarroot can fulfill his avowed duty to insult me:
Briarroot could purchase a collection of all national flags in the world.
Then Briarroot could burn every one of them but his own, the United States's.
Briarroot could repeat this procedure until he begins to feel better (or until
more effective medication takes effect).

So you consider that it would be an insult to you if I listed
every single war crime committed by your home country? How
revealing. Now you know how I feel about your doing the same
thing with American war crimes. Now we can all see why you
continue your campaign: you wish to insult the American readers
of this forum, or rather just those you consider to be "right-wing,
flag waving, jingoistic, racist Americans"

Caveat: Free medical advice should be heeded at one's own risk.

I suggest the doctor seek some of his own prescribed treatment.


"Threats are seldom of avail to bring a man back to reason.
One does not become angry with a madman."
--Anthony Trollope (He Knew He Was Right)

Too right. I would have offered you pity, if you had not proven
to be so unethical, dishonest and hypocritical.

A new enemy of Lev Khariton"

Who is Lev Khariton and what is he or she supposed to have done or not done?

I write this post only to clarify my position on some issues that were raised.
I have no interest whatsoever in any personal communication with "Briarroot".

In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), "Briarroot" wrote
to me: "...You deserve to be insulted, roundly and repeatedly. I consider it
my duty to expose you..."

The reader may understand that anything written by "Briarroot" toward me does
not warrant any response beyond disdain, though I have the right to respond
whenever I choose.

Briarroot wrote in message ...
(snipped)
Personal information? Stop lying. You know why I want to know where your
from, it's written just below.

Evidently, "Briarroot" has his own definition of "personal information".

You continue to duck the question. We all know why. It doesn't suit your
chosen role as propagandist to allow counterpoint to appear alongside your
list of American crimes.

Evidently, "Briarroot" has not read or does not remember any of my writings
here about some of the historical crimes of, for instance, the British,
Belgians, Dutch, Germans, or Japanese.

"Briarroot" wrote:
We'd really like to see whether the average person in *your*
home country is as ignorant about all the atrocities committed
by *your* governments over the course of its entire history, as
you claim the average American is about American history.

In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), "Briarroot" wrote
to me: "...where ever you are from, I am sure that your homeland's history of
racism, brutality and naked aggression is little different from America's...."

Evidently, "Briarroot" is ignorant enough to believe ("I am sure") that every
other country must have a "history of racism, brutality, and naked aggression"
"little different" from that of the United States. Really? Since the United
States was founded, for instance, how many other countries has Switzerland
invaded? And how many people did the Swiss enslave?

Let's make a comparison, shall we?

Does "Briarroot" believe that the United States should be absolved of all moral
responsibilities for its crimes--or even that those crimes may be denied--if he
can find a way to attribute comparable moral responsibilities to other countries
for their other unrelated crimes?

The readers of r.g.c.m. are waiting eagerly to thank you for
enlightening us about the state of education in *your* homeland.

Who are these "readers of RGCM" who "are waiting eagerly" Did "Briarroot"
conduct a survey here? How many voices does "Briarroot" hear in his head?

Nick wrote:
Briarroot seems obsessed in his mission to track down my "homeland".
As a jingoistic American, Briarroot seems to believe that I or everyone
else in the world must have similar feelings of national chauvinism.

Again, the wily propagandist wishes to introduce a new note to the discussion:
obsession. Who is supposed to be obsessed? Why little old Briarroot, that's
who. Why?

As far as I know, it's *not* normal behaviour here for someone to continue
demanding--which "Briarroot" has been doing, even though he has declared, in
effect, that he considers it his 'duty' to insult me as often as possible--that
someone else must specifically reveal his or her 'homeland'. Some people might
well regard that behaviour by "Briarroot" as 'obsessive', if not deranged.

Because he refuses to lie down before Nick's campaign to seemingly list
every American war crime ever committed, or even suggested by the worst
revisionists in print.

My posts give enough scholarly references for the reader to check my sources.

In the thread, "OT Dresden teapots" (17 August 2003), "Briarroot" wrote:
"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.
This has long been the model of war making by the human race. Recent European
tradition (inherited by their former colonies) in the last several centuries
has moderated this model, but the older system is still sound...."

Given his view of warfare ("the obvious": genocide = victory), I find it hard
to imagine what "Briarroot" would regard as an "American war crime" or why
he would find it so objectionable to discuss what that could really mean.

Nick wrote:
Here's a suggestion on how Briarroot can fulfill his avowed duty to insult
me: Briarroot could purchase a collection of all national flags in the world.
Then Briarroot could burn every one of them but his own, the United States's.
Briarroot could repeat this procedure until he begins to feel better
(or until more effective medication takes effect).

What I wrote (above) was *sarcasm*, which "Briarroot", acting with his usual
stupidity, then interpreted *literally*. My point was that I could *not*
care less about how many times "Briarroot" burns 'my' national flag(s).
I am *not* a "flag-waver" like "Briarroot"; I don't display any flags at all.

So you consider that it would be an insult to you if I listed every single
war crime committed by your home country?

No, I would *not* feel personally offended at all.

How revealing.

What that has revealed again is that Briarroot's ludicrous conclusions about
me and what I believe have *no rational connection* with what I write here.

Now you know how I feel about your doing the same thing with American war
crimes.

I do *not* know with absolute certainty how "Briarroot" feels exactly.
As far as I can know from his posts here, however, "Briarroot" tends to do
his utmost to discourage the historical subject of "American war crimes"
from being mentioned or discussed.

Now we can all see why you continue your campaign: you wish to insult the
American readers of this forum...

Who, exactly, are "we"? How many voices does "Briarroot" hear in his head?
Apart from Tim Hanke, Stan Booz, and "Briarroot" himself, I do *not* recall
any complaints from "the American readers of this forum" that what I have
written about United States history has personally "insulted" them.
Indeed, as I recall, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") wrote to "Briarroot" to point
out that he did *not* feel upset at all by my writings here on history.

Here are some comments on my posts here from a broad variety of readers:

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." (on 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."

fiat lux
--Nick

"Nick" wrote ...
I write this post only to clarify my position on some issues that were
raised.
I have no interest whatsoever in any personal communication with
"Briarroot".

In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), "Briarroot"
wrote
to me: "...You deserve to be insulted, roundly and repeatedly. I consider
it
my duty to expose you..."

The reader may understand that anything written by "Briarroot" toward me
does
not warrant any response beyond disdain, though I have the right to
respond
whenever I choose.

Briarroot wrote in message
...
(snipped)
Personal information? Stop lying. You know why I want to know where
your
from, it's written just below.

Evidently, "Briarroot" has his own definition of "personal information".

You continue to duck the question. We all know why. It doesn't suit
your
chosen role as propagandist to allow counterpoint to appear alongside
your
list of American crimes.

Evidently, "Briarroot" has not read or does not remember any of my
writings
here about some of the historical crimes of, for instance, the British,
Belgians, Dutch, Germans, or Japanese.

"Briarroot" wrote:
We'd really like to see whether the average person in *your*
home country is as ignorant about all the atrocities committed
by *your* governments over the course of its entire history, as
you claim the average American is about American history.

In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), "Briarroot"
wrote
to me: "...where ever you are from, I am sure that your homeland's history
of
racism, brutality and naked aggression is little different from
America's...."

Evidently, "Briarroot" is ignorant enough to believe ("I am sure") that
every
other country must have a "history of racism, brutality, and naked
aggression"
"little different" from that of the United States. Really? Since the
United
States was founded, for instance, how many other countries has Switzerland
invaded? And how many people did the Swiss enslave?

Let's make a comparison, shall we?

Does "Briarroot" believe that the United States should be absolved of all
moral
responsibilities for its crimes--or even that those crimes may be
denied--if he
can find a way to attribute comparable moral responsibilities to other
countries
for their other unrelated crimes?

The readers of r.g.c.m. are waiting eagerly to thank you for
enlightening us about the state of education in *your* homeland.

Who are these "readers of RGCM" who "are waiting eagerly" Did "Briarroot"
conduct a survey here? How many voices does "Briarroot" hear in his head?

Nick wrote:
Briarroot seems obsessed in his mission to track down my "homeland".
As a jingoistic American, Briarroot seems to believe that I or
everyone
else in the world must have similar feelings of national chauvinism.

Again, the wily propagandist wishes to introduce a new note to the
discussion:
obsession. Who is supposed to be obsessed? Why little old Briarroot,
that's
who. Why?

As far as I know, it's *not* normal behaviour here for someone to continue
demanding--which "Briarroot" has been doing, even though he has declared,
in
effect, that he considers it his 'duty' to insult me as often as
possible--that
someone else must specifically reveal his or her 'homeland'. Some people
might
well regard that behaviour by "Briarroot" as 'obsessive', if not deranged.

Because he refuses to lie down before Nick's campaign to seemingly list
every American war crime ever committed, or even suggested by the worst
revisionists in print.

My posts give enough scholarly references for the reader to check my
sources.

In the thread, "OT Dresden teapots" (17 August 2003), "Briarroot" wrote:
"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.
This has long been the model of war making by the human race. Recent
European
tradition (inherited by their former colonies) in the last several
centuries
has moderated this model, but the older system is still sound...."

Given his view of warfare ("the obvious": genocide = victory), I find it
hard
to imagine what "Briarroot" would regard as an "American war crime" or why
he would find it so objectionable to discuss what that could really mean.

Nick wrote:
Here's a suggestion on how Briarroot can fulfill his avowed duty to
insult
me: Briarroot could purchase a collection of all national flags in the
world.
Then Briarroot could burn every one of them but his own, the United
States's.
Briarroot could repeat this procedure until he begins to feel better
(or until more effective medication takes effect).

What I wrote (above) was *sarcasm*, which "Briarroot", acting with his
usual
stupidity, then interpreted *literally*. My point was that I could *not*
care less about how many times "Briarroot" burns 'my' national flag(s).
I am *not* a "flag-waver" like "Briarroot"; I don't display any flags at
all.

So you consider that it would be an insult to you if I listed every
single
war crime committed by your home country?

No, I would *not* feel personally offended at all.

How revealing.

What that has revealed again is that Briarroot's ludicrous conclusions
about
me and what I believe have *no rational connection* with what I write
here.

Now you know how I feel about your doing the same thing with American
war
crimes.

I do *not* know with absolute certainty how "Briarroot" feels exactly.
As far as I can know from his posts here, however, "Briarroot" tends to do
his utmost to discourage the historical subject of "American war crimes"
from being mentioned or discussed.

Now we can all see why you continue your campaign: you wish to insult
the
American readers of this forum...

Who, exactly, are "we"? How many voices does "Briarroot" hear in his
head?
Apart from Tim Hanke, Stan Booz, and "Briarroot" himself, I do *not*
recall
any complaints from "the American readers of this forum" that what I have
written about United States history has personally "insulted" them.
Indeed, as I recall, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") wrote to "Briarroot" to
point
out that he did *not* feel upset at all by my writings here on history.

Here are some comments on my posts here from a broad variety of readers:

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." (on 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."

fiat lux
--Nick

http://www.timothyhanke.net/youdecide.htm

Tim Hanke

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message news:WQR3b.303265$uu5.65004@sccrnsc04...

(snip, snip, snip, snip)

http://www.timothyhanke.net/youdecide.htm

Tim Hanke
______________________________________

I wish this thread would die. I'm sorry I started it. From what I've
seen and heard so far, Tim's doing a great job under horrible
circumstances, and while his admissions of "cultural prejudce" during
the election may or may not have been politically correct, it doesn't
have much relevance any more, particually in these times when we need
action more than we need politics.

The posts have gone so far astray that the posters should strongly
consider changing the title and/or killing this thread.

Would it help kill this thread if we turned the discussion to the
Mensa Model?

Sorry Tim,

KidDon

On 4 Sep 2003 09:00:20 -0700, (Don
Mihokovich) wrote:

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message news:WQR3b.303265$uu5.65004@sccrnsc04...

(snip, snip, snip, snip)

http://www.timothyhanke.net/youdecide.htm

Tim Hanke
______________________________________

I wish this thread would die. I'm sorry I started it. From what I've
seen and heard so far, Tim's doing a great job under horrible
circumstances, and while his admissions of "cultural prejudce" during
the election may or may not have been politically correct, it doesn't
have much relevance any more, particually in these times when we need
action more than we need politics.

The posts have gone so far astray that the posters should strongly
consider changing the title and/or killing this thread.

Would it help kill this thread if we turned the discussion to the
Mensa Model?

Sorry Tim,

KidDon

I disagree. Many of Tim's statements since being elected are nearly
the same if not identical to what he said before being elected.

I do not know whay you've seen and heard so far, but I do know that
his positions are in a state of flux. First he wanted to kill the
books and equipment business, they after being elected he wanted to
develop it. Now, I think he wants to kill it again, but I cannot be
sure.

Sam Sloan

(Don Mihokovich) wrote in message om...
"Tim Hanke" wrote in message news
:WQR3b.303265$uu5.65004@sccrnsc04...
(to Nick Bourbaki, who had responded to "Briarroot"):

(snip, snip, snip, snip) (snipped by Don Mihokovich)

http://www.timothyhanke.net/youdecide.htm
Tim Hanke

I wish this thread would die.

Has Don Mihokovich ignored the fact that his post was written in response to
a recent post (29 August 2003) in this thread by *Tim Hanke* himself?

I had written a post only to clarify my position in response to "Briarroot",
and my post hardly mentioned Tim Hanke at all. I did *not* criticise Tim
Hanke in *that post*, but then Tim Hanke decided to jump back into the thread
by writing his cited post (above), which includes a link to his website
page personally lampooning me and Mark Houlsby.

Evidently, at least as of 29 August 2003, Tim Hanke had not yet become tired
of making more personal attacks on me in this thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural
Prejudice" (created and cross-posted to RGCM by Don Mihokovich). Accordingly,
Tim Hanke seems less anxious than Don Mihokovich about this thread's demise.

I'm sorry I started it.

Is Don Mihokovich also sorry that he has created threads evidently only for
the purposes of making personal or political attacks on Mark Houlsby and Noah
Roberts, neither of whom have any connection with USCF business or politics?

From what I've seen and heard so far, Tim's doing a great job under horrible
circumstances, and while his admissions of "cultural prejudce" during
the election may or may not have been politically correct, it doesn't
have much relevance any more, particually in these times when we need
action more than we need politics.

I do wish the USCF well, though whatever happens to the USCF will have no
effect on my enjoyment of chess. I could not care less about whatever Tim
Hanke does in or for USCF. I could not care less about whatever Tim Hanke
writes in RGCP as long as he leaves my name out of it. If Tim Hanke decides
to make another personal attack on me, however, then that does become an
issue for me. Does Don Mihokovich understand that?

I know that it's politically de rigueur for many, if not most, Americans to do
their utmost to deny, cover up, or excuse not only any "cultural prejudice",
but also any racism in the United States, particularly among the powerful,
such as the late Senator Strom Thurmond.

"The Legend of Strom's Remorse: a Washington lie is laid to rest"
by Timothy Noah (16 December 2002)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2075453/

"For many years, there's been a cherished Washington lie about Strom Thurmond.
The lie is that Thurmond, though once a leading segregationist, later renounced
that view as morally wrong. Trent Lott repeated that lie at his Dec. 13
press conference....It isn't just conservatives who believe this fairy tale
about sin, remorse, and redemption. The 'New York Times' buys into it too....

But there never was any such expression of remorse or plea for forgiveness.
Thurmond has never publicly repudiated his segregationist past...The legend
of Strom's Remorse was *invented*, by common unspoken consent within the
Beltway culture, in order to provide a plausible explanation why Thurmond
should continue to hold power and command at least marginal respectability
well past the time when history had condemned Thurmond's most significant
political contribution. Now that Thurmond is finally leaving Washington,
the lie serves no further purpose and will fade away."

--Timothy Noah (16 December 2002)

The posts have gone so far astray that the posters should strongly
consider changing the title and/or killing this thread.

Perhaps *Tim Hanke* should have considered that before he posted another
personal attack on me (and Mark Houlsby) in this thread on 29 August 2003.

Would it help kill this thread if we turned the discussion to the Mensa Model?

I shall "do my bit" here by *not* discussing the Prometheus Society model. :-)

Sorry Tim,

At least until the next USCF election campaign, perhaps. :-)

'Ah! child, you should read books which would teach you a little hypocrisy,
which would instruct you how to hide your thoughts a little better.'
--Henry Fielding (Tom Jones)

I am ready to quit writing in this thread if I am subjected to no more attacks.

--Nick

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message gy.com...
Lev Khariton and his breathless cheerleader Goran Tomic are dimwits. And the
Swiss are total world weenies...they didn't invade any countries because
they were too busy banking all the money of the world's despots. All that
Nazi gold, paying for your health plan...the Swiss are no more moral or
admirable than any other country in the world, and in many cases, their
fabled neutrality comes off as self-serving and amoral.
TMB

I don't understand why "The Masked Bishop" (TMB) wrote that 'response' to my
post. I write independently of both Lev Khariton and Goran Tomic, and I do
*not* necessarily concur with anything written by either of them.

Perhaps "The Masked Bishop" should consider removing his or her mask.
Evidently, now TMB may find it too hard to identify some persons correctly.
For example, on 10 September 2003, TMB created the RGCP thread, "Judit Polgar
Rules...and now she's available!", because TMB had confused Judit with her
sister, Zsuzsa Polgar, who's seeking a divorce.

Might "The Masked Bishop" even have imagined that I am Goran Tomic?

For the record, I mentioned Switzerland only as a counterexample to Briarroot's
ignorant contention that every other country must have a "history of racism
brutality, and naked aggression" "little different" from that of the United
States. I wrote nothing about Switzerland during the Second World War.

"I like people who understand what one says to them, and also what one doesn't
say."
--Henry James (The Princess Casamassima)

--Nick

You two appear to spend a lot of time arguing about the argument; any argument?

KidDon

_________________


(Nick) wrote in message . com...
"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message gy.com...
Lev Khariton and his breathless cheerleader Goran Tomic are dimwits. And the
Swiss are total world weenies...they didn't invade any countries because
they were too busy banking all the money of the world's despots. All that
Nazi gold, paying for your health plan...the Swiss are no more moral or
admirable than any other country in the world, and in many cases, their
fabled neutrality comes off as self-serving and amoral.
TMB

I don't understand why "The Masked Bishop" (TMB) wrote that 'response' to my
post. I write independently of both Lev Khariton and Goran Tomic, and I do
*not* necessarily concur with anything written by either of them.

Perhaps "The Masked Bishop" should consider removing his or her mask.
Evidently, now TMB may find it too hard to identify some persons correctly.
For example, on 10 September 2003, TMB created the RGCP thread, "Judit Polgar
Rules...and now she's available!", because TMB had confused Judit with her
sister, Zsuzsa Polgar, who's seeking a divorce.

Might "The Masked Bishop" even have imagined that I am Goran Tomic?

For the record, I mentioned Switzerland only as a counterexample to Briarroot's
ignorant contention that every other country must have a "history of racism
brutality, and naked aggression" "little different" from that of the United
States. I wrote nothing about Switzerland during the Second World War.

"I like people who understand what one says to them, and also what one doesn't
say."
--Henry James (The Princess Casamassima)

--Nick