This post is the first part of my response to Joshua Lilly's post.

In the interest of *clarity* (something that Mr Holsztynski presumably
prefers to avoid as much as he can here), Wlodzimierz Holsztynski created
this baseless troll thread in order to personally attack me *again*, while
*completely snipping* any reference to what I wrote in the original thread--
including the thread's name--evidently in order to make it as difficult as
possible for anyone interested to read what I *actually* wrote about him.
I shall identify that original thread, so one may read it for oneself.

Mr Holsztynski has a long record--I have cited the evidence many times in the
past, such as in the RGCM thread 'Spassky' around February 2004--of making
unwarranted, inflammatory, and false accusations against me personally
(Evidently, Mr Holsztynski could know nearly nothing about me personally.),
which are expressed in his characteristically vehemently abusive language.
Mr Holsztynski also has made some insulting comments (such as referring to
Matt Nemmers as an 'idiot') against other writers in the chess newsgroups.

In this latest case, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski created this troll thread as
his 'response' to what I wrote about him (in passing) to Joshua Lilly in
the thread 'Beatriz Marinello (OT)' (11 May 2004). Here's *everything*
that I wrote about Wlodzimierz Holsztynski in that thread:

"As I recall reading in the chess newsgroups, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has
equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and evidently asserted that anyone
who's not Jewish has no moral right to criticise Israel, for such criticism
could be motivated, most likely in his apparent view, only by anti-Semitism."
--Nick (11 May 2004, 'Beatriz Marinello (OT)')

Please note that what I wrote was *not* a personal attack on Wlodzimierz
Holsztysnki (whom I always have addressed properly by his full name or as
'Mr Holsztynski', while, in contrast, he has often referred to me as 'phony
Nick' or other of his usual insults). Instead, it was an accurate assessment
of Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's views--please note that even he has *not*
disputed the accuracy of my assessment (I am ready to cite Mr Holsztynski's
specific words in evidence if necessary.)--as expressed in his posts here.

Also, I believe that I was being *quite charitable* toward Mr Holsztynski
in *not* mentioning (in 'Beatriz Marinello (OT)') the extremely offensive
terms in which Mr Holsztynski has previously (some other readers here, such
as Simon ('chapman billy') may remember them) personally attacked me.

Here's a summary of the relevant background between Mr Holsztynski and me:

1) In a thread (with my name *inappropriately* in its heading) created by
another troll in order to attack me personally, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
denounced me in quite abusive terms for allegedly being anti-Semitic.

2) In response, Simon ('chapman billy'), who knows me better than
Mr Holsztynski could, wrote to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski to advise him
that I (a critic of Israel's policies against the Palestinians) could
be considered an anti-Zionist, but I definitely should *not* be considered
anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish). Simon attempted to explain to him that
there's a significant difference between being an anti-Zionist and being
an anti-Semite. As I recall, Simon went on to write that, notwithstanding
his own differences with me on some issues, he believed that Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski should attempt to treat me with respect.

3) In his 'response' to Simon, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski ignored (or distorted)
about everything that Simon had attempted to explain to him. Evidently,
Mr Holsztynski continued to insist in vehement terms that anti-Zionism and
anti-Semitism were the same thing, and that I must be an anti-Semite
whose presumably only comprehensible motive (to Mr Holsztynski) for
criticising Israel's policies against the Palestinians (my criticisms
are *shared by some Israeli Jews of my acquaintance*) was my alleged
hatred of all Jews. Of course, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's accusations
against me are false, and his other many insults against me warrant no
further response beyond utter disdain.

If Wlodzimierz Holsztynski insists on continuing this matter, then I am
ready--if necessary--to cite the *specific evidence* of what he and I
have written in many threads. Anyone interested could begin by reading
what Mr Holsztynski and I wrote in the long RGCM thread 'Spassky' around
February 2004.

--Nick

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message ...(to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski):
The problem is, myself or any myriad of others, have no clue as to this
person`s history. He could, as you say, be an idiot. But I don`t know
that. I see only one thing: him making a post, and you responding with a
personal attack. It makes you look bad and unworthy of attention, not him.
I`m sorry, but that`s how it works. I only knew what I saw. If you want
people to not pay attention to him, and have good reasons, then you might
want to take another approach. Maybe I will go look up his stuff, as you
suggest, but as it looks to me (who knows nothing at all about this guy or
his history) is that you just attacked him out of the blue, severely.

This post is the next part of my response to Joshua Lilly's post.

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in
message ...(to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski):
The problem is, myself or any myriad of others,
have no clue as to this person`s history.

Mr Lilly, why would you say that you "have *no clue* as to (my) history"
of writing in the chess newsgroups? Since early 2003 I have written hundreds
of posts in the chess newsgroups. *If* you know how to read and have a good
memory, then it should *not* be too difficult for you to 'have (a) clue'.
Even *if* you happen to be among the evidently many 'readers' here who
seem nearly illiterate or who have extremely short or flawed memories,
it's still better for you to read what I actually wrote in its original
context (Do you know how to use the Google archives?) than for you to
accept passively whatever someone else claims that I have written.

He could, as you say, be an idiot. But I don't know that.

Mr Lilly, I hope that you usually do not give credence to personal accusations
that have been made without attaching any supporting evidence.

For the record, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has previously called me an 'idiot'
at least several times and referred explicitly to my alleged 'low IQ'.
Would Mr Holsztynski claim to have ESP? Otherwise, how could he 'know'
what IQ test(s) I may have taken and what their result(s) were?

If Wlodzimierz Holsztynski is certain enough that I must have a 'low IQ'
(which, to be kind, should mean that my IQ must be less than 100) to bet
his life savings on that proposition--in a legally binding contract--then
I could be interested in accepting that wager.

I see only one thing: him making a post, and you responding with
a personal attack.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has a long record of making abusive personal attacks
against me (not to mention some other writers in the chess newsgroups).
Here's one characteristic example (of many):

"So I am virtually spitting in his (my) face. It is as good as for real,
and even better. I don't need any violence. Spitting virtually in his (my)
cowardish face is good enough."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (30 January 2004)

It makes you look bad and unworthy of attention, not him.
I`m sorry, but that`s how it works. I only knew what I saw.

Mr Lilly, I have to say that being able to read carefully and having a good
memory is *indispensable* in forming a reliable judgment of writers here.

If you want people to not pay attention to him, and have good reasons,
then you might want to take another approach.

Mark Houlsby already has offered this advice to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
(the asterisks were Mr Houlsby's in his original text):

"In stark contrast, when you write about the Middle East, and about Israel's
situation, you are, by your own admission, 'no expert'. The reason why you
look bad with respect to this rather complex historical/political/economic
question is that you make *yourself* look bad--you do this by betraying your
ignorance left and right, by making wild and unsupportable pro-Israeli claims,
by making ad hominem attacks on folks who have, by obliterating your ignorant
arguments, pointed out that you have made *yourself* look bad.

My advice to you is: confine yourself to writing about subjects with respect to
which you are, undoubtedly an expert. That way, you'll avoid *making yourself
look like a trolling idiot*, just as you've done, in this thread, again."

--Mark Houlsby (7 December 2003, 'Relevant details')

Maybe I will go look up his stuff, as you suggest,

Then you may begin by reading what Mr Holsztynski and I wrote
in the long RGCM thread 'Spassky' around February 2004.
I can refer you to other threads if it becomes necessary.

but as it looks to me (who knows nothing at all about this guy or his history)

Mr Lilly, the trolls here can thrive--when they do--largely on account of the
presence of many inattentive 'readers' here with extremely short memories.

is that you just attacked him out of the blue, severely.

It's far from the first time that Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has done that to me.

--Nick

Phony (Nick) wrote in message . com...
starts with a proper quotation this time, about himself:

He could, as you say, be an idiot. But I don't know that.

Now he knows.

For the record, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has previously
called me an 'idiot' at least several times

And rightly so.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has a long record of making
abusive personal attacks against me (not to mention
some other writers in the chess newsgroups).

All I am saying is obvious and undisputable: you
are stupid, phony, DISHONEST, "intelectually" sleazy
("intelectually" in quotes or otherwise it does
not apply to you). Now, this is a chess group, and
not about your tiny personal complexes and problems.
Thus **** off away from my name. Stick to chess, you idiot.

Wlod

Dear Mr. Bourbaki,

Heil Dubya!

Once again, I offer the advice that you ignore sick bacilli, such as
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. They have nothing to say that their rulers have not
programmed into them. They are incapable of a single independent thought
concerning their own lives, so why chide them for their assininities concerning
the lives of others. (They can't conceive of ANY lives except their own and
those of their masters.)

As a friend, albeit we've never met face-to-face, I once again urge you to
ignore them. Correcting their baldfaced lies and the parroting of the lies of
their masters is one thing. Arguing with them serves no purpose and should be
beneath you.

Phony (Nick) wrote in message
.com...
starts with a proper quotation this time, about himself:

He could, as you say, be an idiot. But I don't know that.

Now he knows.

For the record, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has previously
called me an 'idiot' at least several times

And rightly so.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has a long record of making
abusive personal attacks against me (not to mention
some other writers in the chess newsgroups).

All I am saying is obvious and undisputable: you
are stupid, phony, DISHONEST, "intelectually" sleazy
("intelectually" in quotes or otherwise it does
not apply to you). Now, this is a chess group, and
not about your tiny personal complexes and problems.
Thus **** off away from my name. Stick to chess, you idiot.

Wlod


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

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka über Alles!

(The more information that comes out about the attacks on the Twin Towers and
the Pentagon of 11 September 2001 the more it appears that those attacks were
organized by the rulers of the United States and were intended to have the same
effect on the people of the United States that the Reichstag fire had on the
people of Germany in 1933.)

Fight terrorism! Dissolve the CIA and disarm the Pentagon! (I have watched
the hearings of the Commission to investigate the attacks on the Twin Towers
and the Pentagon of 11 September 2001. As a result, I have become convinced
that every one of the witnesses and their four Presidents - and every one of
the Commissioners - should be tried for:
(1. Conspiracy to commit terrorism; and/or
(2. Commission of terrorist acts; and/or
(3. Conspiracy to commit murder; and/or
(4. Commission of murder; and/or
(5. Treason; and/or
(6. Suborning one or more of the above acts.)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

..
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has a long record of making
abusive personal attacks against me (not to mention
some other writers in the chess newsgroups).


Apparently, Nick Bourbaki is not aware of the fact that he himself has quite
a record of making many abusive, personal attacks against a wide variety of
other posters here. Hence, when Nick whines that Wlod has "abused" him, it
sounds very hollow, and off-key.



All I am saying is obvious and undisputable: you
are stupid, phony, DISHONEST, "intelectually" sleazy
("intelectually" in quotes or otherwise it does
not apply to you).


Intellectually is a word which should never be (accidentally) misspelled.
Other examples might include: "stoopid," "illiturate," and "peebrain." :-)
Wlod also made a Bushian fumbledygook out of the word "indisputable," by
replacing the prefix "in" with "un." (Okay, maybe there is no such word as
"fumbledygook," but there ought to be.)



Now, this is a chess group, and not about your tiny personal
complexes and problems. Thus **** off away from my name.
Stick to chess, you idiot.


I would describe Nick's complexes as actually being rather "large," so to
speak, and quite deeply-rooted.

In another thread, Nick himself pointed out that his own postings could
better be attacked for being off-topic, for they so infrequently pertain to
chess. Nevertheless, you must understand that when Paranoia takes over the
lead, Perspective is driven to the rear.
When cornered for his apparent lack of interest in chess, Nick-the-liar
simply rationalizes that he was dragged here (kicking and screaming, no doubt)
by someone else's evil crossposting. So you see, he cannot be held responsible
for his own actions, and his more-often-than-not off-topic postings should of
course, be blamed on others (just like everything else).

-- Doc

Stan,

Actually, Isaiah 40:22 is proof that you are mistaken about the ancients
believing that the Earth was flat. Those who were taught the truth, were
also given the facts of their physical realities.

The belief by present day man, that he is "smarter", "more aware", and that
the modern city dwellers are better off than the "bucolic" existence of
agrarian societies, is just more proof (if the USCF were not enough proof
for you), that mankind is not only completely deceived and ungrateful, but
incapable of ruling himself.


--
Tom Klem

"A lie gets half-way round the world before the truth get's its pants on!"
---Winston Churchill


"StanB" wrote in message
...

"Curt Seefeldt" wrote in message
k.net...

continue to go imho. I also think religion has a lot to do with it...be
is
Islam or Hebrew. Any time you have a religion there are always zealots.
That
is not saying I do not believe in God...what I do not believe in is the
dogma of organized religions, no matter what the religion is.

Those dogmas were founded thousands of years ago. They must be correct.
The
people that wrote those things knew things that we don't. I.e. They knew
the
world was flat and that the sun and the planets revolved around the earth.

StanB

"Tom Klem" wrote in message
news:kSLyc.30282$1c4.442@fed1read06...

Actually, Isaiah 40:22 is proof that you are mistaken about the ancients
believing that the Earth was flat. Those who were taught the truth, were
also given the facts of their physical realities.

The belief by present day man, that he is "smarter", "more aware", and
that
the modern city dwellers are better off than the "bucolic" existence of
agrarian societies, is just more proof (if the USCF were not enough proof
for you), that mankind is not only completely deceived and ungrateful, but
incapable of ruling himself.

I meant it as a metaphor but if you want to go on to subscribing the
official religion of the Roman Empire, be my guest. Your reading assignment
is "The DaVinci Code".

"Tom Klem" wrote in message
news:kSLyc.30282$1c4.442@fed1read06...
Stan,

Actually, Isaiah 40:22 is proof that you are mistaken about the ancients
believing that the Earth was flat. Those who were taught the truth, were
also given the facts of their physical realities.

Isaiah 40:22 - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, ... I'm
not so sure that passage is proof positive. I'd like to see it before it was
translated a bunch of times.

"StanB" wrote in message
...

"Tom Klem" wrote in message
news:kSLyc.30282$1c4.442@fed1read06...
Stan,

Actually, Isaiah 40:22 is proof that you are mistaken about the ancients
believing that the Earth was flat. Those who were taught the truth, were
also given the facts of their physical realities.

Isaiah 40:22 - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, ... I'm
not so sure that passage is proof positive. I'd like to see it before it
was
translated a bunch of times.

Ekekiel 25:17 -

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of
the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of
charity and good will, shepards the weak through the Valley of Darkness, for
he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I
will strike down upon thee with great vengence and furious anger those who
attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know My name is The
Lord, when I lay my vengence upon thee."

(As interpreted by Samuel L. Jackson, one mushroom-cloud layin'
mother****er.)

Regards,

Matt

"StanB" wrote in message
...

"Tom Klem" wrote in message
news:kSLyc.30282$1c4.442@fed1read06...
Stan,

Actually, Isaiah 40:22 is proof that you are mistaken about the ancients
believing that the Earth was flat. Those who were taught the truth, were
also given the facts of their physical realities.

Isaiah 40:22 - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, ... I'm
not so sure that passage is proof positive. I'd like to see it before it
was
translated a bunch of times.

Ekekiel 25:17 -

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of
the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of
charity and good will, shepards the weak through the Valley of Darkness, for
he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I
will strike down upon thee with great vengence and furious anger those who
attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know My name is The
Lord, when I lay my vengence upon thee."

(As interpreted by Samuel L. Jackson, one mushroom-cloud layin'
mother****er.)

Regards,

Matt