Dear Jerry,

From: ospam (Jerome Bibuld)
Date: 08/09/03 03:45 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

"nomorechess",

snip

I don't see any reason to get into a flame war with you, so I ask you to
consider the following a correction of your misinterpretation of my last
message to you. Please reread that message, if you can. (I understand if
you
can't, because I do not keep records of usenet posts and very rarely will
even
try to recover a lost post.) I hope the rereading (and/or this message) will
calm you. If not, as they say in French, "Ecco la vita."


FWIW I suspect that *my* having failed, until now, to understand the *intent*
of the above
form-of-words may be explained, in large measure, by my being a big fan of the
short stories of Thomas Pynchon (not that Mr. Pynchon is in any way to blame
for this shortcoming of mine).

Accordingly, I bow to your superior wit, and tug my forelock on account of an
earlier, misguided attempt, by me, to reconcile an apparent
geographic/linguistic disparity.

Firstly, I did not claim that you were pretending to quote Mr. Bourbaki. I
was
unsure of whom you were quoting. That is why I started the message with "I
have not followed this thread closely … " It is also why I wrote, " … IF
(emphasis added - JB) anonymouse 'nomorechess' is pretending to quote Nick
Bourbaki, I am sure he is in error." I wasn't sure whom "anonymouse
'nomorechess'" was quoting, so I tried to take an "out" that I thought would
let the entire world, including "nomore chess", know this. In short, I not
only missed the point of Stan Booz, I never saw it with mine own two eyes.


You may be aware that Mr. John Macnab, who is, I think, with good reason, one
of the most respected members of these groups, once wrote to NoMo (who had just
characterised him as: "Mr. MacBad") in this post:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X35E214D5

"I'm not sure if I was unclear, or if you have trouble reading, or if you
are an adolescent trolling for a flame war."

John Macnab
Date: 2003-07-18 10:23:04 PST

A little more than seven weeks later, based upon NoMo's posting history, it is,
by now, abundantly clear that the esteemed Mr. Macnab's *third* optional
characterisation of NoMo is, in all circumstances, to be preferred (no matter
what his biological age might actually be).

Secondly, of course, I focused entirely on the misquotation/misallocation of
credit. That was the whole point of my post. I knew nothing of -- and
cared
even less -- for Booz's point. I usually do not care for his points and
don't
trouble myself about them, as Booz's points. (Unfortunately, assholes and
bacilli of Booz's nature control his - and my - government, so I HAVE to care
about and try to counter his points in my daily life.)

I think Mr. Bibuld probably missed Stan's point, as he has focused
entirely
upon such trivialities as the correct author, and the correct wording,
along
with a prompted ad
hominem attack upon this poster.

Thirdly, the use of the adjective "anonymouse" was the only ad hominem attack
in the entire posting, to which I gladly plead, "Guilty as sin, Your
DIShonor."
I have made my position on anonymous posters more than clear, more than once
in the past; I consider them crass cowards. Even when I compliment the
posting
of an anonymouse (noun, in this sense, for the nitpickers), there is an
implied
attack in such a post. While we live in a fascist state and I don't put it
past Uncle Samuel to persecute those within his military control, I have seen
nothing put forward on this forum by ANY anonymouse that would antagonize
that
bacillus. In fact, the only posters who routinely excoriate the fascist
bacilli who run the U. S. A. are Larry Parr and I, neither of whom is an
anonymouse.


The anonymouse Nick Bourbaki does, as repeatedly characterised in the
vituperative, yet musaceous musings of ultrapatriot infraintellectuals like
Hanke, Booz and the anonymouse Briarroot.

I, too, have done it, from time to time, but my name and exact location should,
by now, be well known to all but the most casual visitors to these groups.

On the whole, I don't make ad hominem attacks, because I am a constant and
continuous propagandist for "minority" opinions and don't believe such
attacks
win arguments. (Certainly, in these United States, facts and logic don't win
arguments, but that's another matter.)

My dear chap, I fear that you may find that the same is true most everywhere.

In addition, I am in agreement with
your postings more often than not, so, because -- as I've said earlier -- I
don't want a flame war with you, why would I attack you as a person (other
than
because of your anonymous posting)?

I think Mr. Bibuld probably missed Stan's point, as he has focused
entirely
upon such trivialities as the correct author, and the correct wording,
along
with a prompted ad hominem attack upon this poster.

(Much snipped.)

"Ad hominem is the last resort of a weak mind." - anonymous anonymouse
(AKA:
me)

Fourthly, judging from your statement below, you cannot understand how much
of
Mr. Burbaki's postings I do read; perhaps, everything except his flame wars
with Adams, Booz, "Briarroot", Hanke, Nemmers (and, now, you?).

Not just "now". NoMo has been going hammer-and-tongs at Bourbaki for *several
months*.


In fact, I
find most of his posts intelligent, knowing and, once again, cogent.

I concur.

You err
in calling his intolerance of racism (with quotation marks around it, despite
your using the adjective "so-called"?!?) a "pet peve" (sic). But, then, you
are a United Statesian and, therefore, infected with the disease of racism,
yourself. We United Statesians all are racist. I include myself, despite my
eight colonial children and 17 colonial grandchildren.

Racism has nothing to do with the views of individuals; it has everything to
do
with the mores of the society. The most significant more of the United
States
is its racism. This derives from its capitalist economy and bourgeois
nature.
(Capitalism, itself, was born of slavery and the racism of the African slave
trade.) United Statesians pretend that they are not racist, because they
claim
it is an individual attribute. They pretend that it is worse to be called a
racist than to be called a fascist, although all fascists are racists, but
not
all racists are fascists. I am not phased by being called a racist, because
I
know I am one. What I try to do is combat my racism -- and the racism of my
society -- whenever and wherever I recognize them, knowing that I cannot win
the battle until the source of all racism -- the U. S. A. -- is destroyed.
You, however, call Mr. Bourbaki's opposition to racism a "pet peeve". That
is
a fundamental difference between us, but it is not overwhelmingly important,
because that is a fundamental difference between me and almost every other
United Statesian. Thus, I disagree with you most profoundly: Racism IS what
you call
"a one way street". (In fact, I doubt that Mr. Bourbaki, being a European,
disagrees with your ignorant statement.)


I certainly would be interested to learn whether Mr. Bourbaki considers *all*
"United Statesians" as racist. He has written, a number of times, of his:
"...thoughtful American friends...". Perhaps he will enlighten us. Perhaps not.
For my part, I am a caucasian European. I am also a musician. I have had the
good fortune, over the years, to meet a great many *very fine* "United
Statesian" musicians, a significant number of whom may be safely described as
my *betters* in terms of their talent, musicianship, instrumentalism,
achievements, indeed in practically every aspect of their careers. At least a
very large minority, and possibly a majority of these fine men and women are
black, or yellow, or brown, or...

No United Statesian musician who I have met has seemed at all racist, they all
get along just fine and play in bands together. Of course, although I have
visited the United States, I do not, and have never, lived there. Perhaps it's
a geographical phenomenon, I cannot say.

When I read Mr. Bourbaki's posts, I find them well written,
accurate and almost invariably cogent.

I am happy to see that Mr. Bibuld has not wasted his valuable time by
reading
some of Mr. Bourbaki's "lesser" postings, which cannot live up to these
high
standards.

Fortunately, such postings are easily identifiable by Mr. Bourbaki's
deranged
personal attacks on a few of his most annoying "enemies," or rather, those
who have
dared to strongly disagree on some issue or other.

While attempting to appear as a disciple of virtue, Mr. Bourbaki has in
fact
demonstrated that he cannot tolerate certain opinions, which differ from
his
own.

One of his pet peves is so-called "racism," which Mr. Bourbaki will
carelessly plaster upon anyone who he thinks might possibly fit his mold.
I
say "his mold," because it
would seen from his many postings that Mr. Boubaki is not fully aware that
racism is
far from a one-way street.

Fifthly, Mr. Bourbaki has treated "Booz, Briarroot", Hanke and Nemmers as the
jingoists they are. I don't know of anyone else he might have called a
jingoist, but, in truth, I don't remember his using the word, "jingoist",
when
referring to any of these four.

Bourbaki has, on at least one occasion, borrowing the term "'jingoist'" from
the esteemed Mr. Larry Tapper, to whom he was replying, used it to describe the
buffoon Hanke:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?H120615D5

He is accurate in his estimations of the
characters and politics of those three

....er, four (to be accurate)...

individuals. Thus, his treatment of
them does not involve a "crude name-calling weapon, against those whose
political stances vary from his own", if he has used the term in describing
them.

Another example is his talk about "jingoism," which he, in effect, uses as
a
crude name-calling weapon, against those whose political stances vary from
his
own. This is simple intolerace, not to mention other yucky things.

Finally, "nomorechess", you are very welcome to the facts in all things,
though
I note that you do not (refuse to?) recognize them in certain cases.

It is obvious that the "quotation" is from Clement Clarke Moore's "A
Visit
from St. Nicholas" (or St. Nickolas, depending on the
publisher). As anyone who loves that great work knows, the
correct lines a
"Laying a finger aside of his nose,
"And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;"

Thank you for this correction. I recognize this as being the correct
version, from my memory of a book, as a child. Let's not discuss how long
ago
that was -- just take my word for it.

(Much snipped passim.)


snip

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)


Those two events happened in both a different century and a different country,
I believe.

The date you quote above *was* exactly once-round-the-calendar from the
CIA-sponsored coup-d'etat in Chile, whose then President Dr. Salvador Allende
was killed in an attack on the Presidential Palace on that date in 1973. At the
time, some reports suggested that Allende had committed suicide in preference
to the inevitability of capture. Most did not. Allende was, of course, ousted
by General Augusto Pinochet.

These facts, together with the resonance, in the United States, of the
telephone number 911, may not have been lost on the strategists in Al Qaeda.


Fraternally (believe it or not),

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus


FraternAlly

Mark
mens una sumus

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message
...(to Jerome Bibuld)
From: ospam (Jerome Bibuld)
Message-id: (to "NoMoreChess")
(snipped)
You may be aware that Mr. John Macnab, who is, I think, with good reason,
one of the most respected members of these groups, once wrote to NoMo (who
had just characterised him as: "Mr. MacBad") in this post:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X35E214D5

"I'm not sure if I was unclear, or if you have trouble reading, or if you
are an adolescent trolling for a flame war."
John Macnab Date: 2003-07-18 10:23:04 PST

A little more than seven weeks later, based upon NoMo's posting history, it
is, by now, abundantly clear that the esteemed Mr. Macnab's *third* optional
characterisation of NoMo is, in all circumstances, to be preferred (no matter
what his biological age might actually be).

Fourthly, judging from your statement below, you cannot understand how much
of Mr. Burbaki's postings I do read; perhaps, everything except his flame
wars with Adams, Booz, "Briarroot", Hanke, Nemmers (and, now, you?).

For the record, I have not been in a "flame war" with Matt Nemmers, and
I attempt to ignore whatever Michael Adams might write about me.

Not just "now". NoMo has been going hammer-and-tongs at Bourbaki for
*several months*.

"NoMoreChess" has been identified as Greg Kennedy.

In fact, I find most of his posts intelligent, knowing and, once again,
cogent.

I concur.

You err in calling his intolerance of racism (with quotation marks around
it, despite your using the adjective "so-called"?!?) a "pet peve" (sic).

I prefer to characterise my opposition to racism as a moral principle.

But, then, you are a United Statesian and, therefore, infected with the
disease of racism, yourself. We United Statesians all are racist.
I include myself, despite my eight colonial children and 17 colonial
grandchildren.

Although racism is endemic in the United States, not every United Statesian
has become afflicted equally by racism.

Racism has nothing to do with the views of individuals; it has everything
to do with the mores of the society. The most significant more of the
United States is its racism.

The "most significant more of the United States" might be its individualistic
consumer culture.

This derives from its capitalist economy and bourgeois nature.
(Capitalism, itself, was born of slavery and the racism of the African
slave trade.) United Statesians pretend that they are not racist, because
they claim it is an individual attribute. They pretend that it is worse to
be called a racist than to be called a fascist, although all fascists are
racists, but not all racists are fascists. I am not phased by being called
a racist, because I know I am one. What I try to do is combat my racism --
and the racism of my society -- whenever and wherever I recognize them,
knowing that I cannot win the battle until the source of all racism--the
U.S.A.--is destroyed. You, however, call Mr. Bourbaki's opposition to
racism a "pet peeve". That is a fundamental difference between us, but it
is not overwhelmingly important, because that is a fundamental difference
between me and almost every other United Statesian. Thus, I disagree with
you most profoundly: Racism IS what you call "a one way street".
(In fact, I doubt that Mr. Bourbaki, being a European, disagrees with your
ignorant statement.)

I certainly would be interested to learn whether Mr. Bourbaki considers *all*
"United Statesians" as racist. He has written, a number of times, of his:
"...thoughtful American friends...". Perhaps he will enlighten us. Perhaps
not.

Dear Mr Houlsby,

In my earlier response to Jerome Bibuld, I already have expressed my differences
on several points with his expressed views about racism in the United States.

For my part, I am a caucasian European. I am also a musician. I have had the
good fortune, over the years, to meet a great many *very fine* "United
Statesian" musicians, a significant number of whom may be safely described as
my *betters* in terms of their talent, musicianship, instrumentalism,
achievements, indeed in practically every aspect of their careers. At least
a very large minority, and possibly a majority of these fine men and women
are black, or yellow, or brown, or...

No United Statesian musician who I have met has seemed at all racist, they
all get along just fine and play in bands together. Of course, although I
have visited the United States, I do not, and have never, lived there.
Perhaps it's a geographical phenomenon, I cannot say.

In the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited" (30 April 2003), Tobi Usher wrote:
"It's ludicrous to call the Dutch more racist than the Americans. I have
lived both in the US and in the Netherlands and there is no comparison."

During your visits to the United States, what you have observed about the
interpersonal relations in the workplace among musicians (who work in a
profession that has been historically comparatively free of racism) seems
accurate as far as it goes. Yet it's only a small piece of the complex mosaic
that could represent the state of race relations in the United States today.
Racism can be a societal or an institutional characteristic, not just an
individual one, which might well be harder for a visitor to notice. You may
not be able to observe any racism that's 'behind the scenes' in the workplace,
which could well be more influential than whatever takes place there openly.

As I have written earlier, one important reality about racism in the United
States is the powerful culture of denial about the realities of racism.

Here's a link to the article, "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/

In the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited" (28 May 2003), Stan Booz wrote:
"...I think back to a professor I studied under at the University. If memory
serves he had a soft accent and was native to Uganda. An amicable gentlemen
who confided to the class that he would like a job in industry *but his race
held him back*. I couldn't help wondering what the result would be if he wore
clean clothes and deodorant to the job interview. You see, his was a summer
class and he wore the same soiled white shirt each sweltering day. The yellow
perspiration rings under his arms would probably never come out no matter how
well he washed his shirt. Perhaps acceptable in his culture but one can only
speculate on how his chances would be after a shower and an attempt the reflect
the host culture."

Evidently, Stan Booz rationalised that the evidence of racial discrimination
in the workplace was the understandable consequence of a cultural deficiency
in personal hygiene among minority applicants.

On the other hand, I have an American friend who's one of the most personally
honest persons whom I have ever known. After we had become close friends, he
told me that he had grown up in a family that had taught him that all non-white
people were racially inferior, both mentally and morally, to white Americans
such as themselves. Those beliefs were shared by all his friends and in his
general community during his "normal American childhood" (his expression).
During his long career in the United States Armed Forces, he lived and worked
abroad, meeting many people from different cultures, and he gradually became
aware of and began to question his own prejudices. (My friend has thanked me
for often having helped him to learn more about other peoples in the world.)
By his own admission, he has not yet become free of all the prejudices that he
has absorbed. For instance, he tends to become "concerned" (his term) whenever
he notices a white woman who's apparently become intimately involved with a
non-white man. Yet I believe that he has been making a generally honest effort
to examine his own prejudices and to come to terms with them for the better.

My friend once said: "You know, I really don't like to have to think about
racism, and I can't say that I really understand it or why it seems to exist.
But whenever I look back on my life experiences and I look around me and see
how differently people still tend to be treated because of their race, all I
can do is thank God that my children and I were all born white in America."

"In essence whiteness is not so much a color as the visible absence of color,
and at the same time the concrete of all colors."
--Herman Melville (Moby Dick)

--Nick