"Hans Jørgen Lassen" wrote in message
. ..

Not worth preserving? Who's gonna stop it?? The world's jealous of the
influence and sheer power of the United States and you guys think that
somehow I should be ashamed of that. I'm not. And people can bitch and
moan about it all they want, but it won't change the fact that we ARE
the
greatest nation on the planet.

Dear Matt,
If you are proud of belonging to a nation that has the world's largest
arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction and proud for that reason, well, I
guess thats your problem. The discussion wasnt really about the number of
guns, but about how they are being used. Still, maybe one could find
something else to be proud of, as an american. I mean, like treating
people,
even those suspected to be criminals, with some degree of decency, a thing
that was once part of the american legal system. Like Miranda: "You have
the
right ..."

And I'm anticipating the "arrogant American asshole" flame that will
undoubtedly accompany any replies to me on this thread, so if your next
scathing remark is going to be to comment on my perceived ignorance or
lack
of education, feel free to save your breath.

And if you feel like an arrogant american asshole, I wont dispute that
point
with you. Thats your problem too. I dont think I ever in my long life
called
anyone an asshole. I prefer more polite ways of insulting people.

Best wishes,
Hans J

Hans,

I simply don't subscribe to the notion that all human beings are good at
heart and don't believe that, in order to treat the locked-up "suspected"
criminals "decently", we should compromise our own safety by letting them
run free. Perhaps I'm a Darwinist in that sense, but I'm a defender of my
and every other American's freedom and if keeping this guys on ice will help
keep the United States free and help us liberate other countries from
oppressive regimes, I'm all for it.

Regards,

Matt

Hans,

I simply don't subscribe to the notion that all human beings are good at
heart and don't believe that, in order to treat the locked-up "suspected"
criminals "decently", we should compromise our own safety by letting them
run free. Perhaps I'm a Darwinist in that sense, but I'm a defender of my
and every other American's freedom and if keeping this guys on ice will
help
keep the United States free and help us liberate other countries from
oppressive regimes, I'm all for it.

Regards,

Matt

Terrorists dont think that americans should be treated decently. I strongly
disagree on that point. I think americans should be treated decently. I even
think that israelis should be treated decently. I also think that arabs and
muslims should be treated decently.
Have a nice summer, I think I am out of here for now.
Best wishes,
Hans J

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" wrote in message
. ..

Hans,

I simply don't subscribe to the notion that all human beings are good at
heart and don't believe that, in order to treat the locked-up
"suspected"
criminals "decently", we should compromise our own safety by letting
them
run free. Perhaps I'm a Darwinist in that sense, but I'm a defender of
my
and every other American's freedom and if keeping this guys on ice will
help
keep the United States free and help us liberate other countries from
oppressive regimes, I'm all for it.

Regards,

Matt

Terrorists dont think that americans should be treated decently. I
strongly
disagree on that point. I think americans should be treated decently. I
even
think that israelis should be treated decently. I also think that arabs
and
muslims should be treated decently.
Have a nice summer, I think I am out of here for now.
Best wishes,
Hans J

You're an idealist, Hans, something for which I can't fault you. However, I
think in your zeal to get everyone to acknowledge everybody else's
differences and respect them, I think you may lose sight of the (often
tragic) reality of the situation.

Take care and have a nice summer.

Regards,

Matt

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" wrote in message
. ..

Have a nice summer, I think I am out of here for now.
Best wishes,


/´¯/)
/¯../ /
/..../ /
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯.`·¸
/'/.../..../.....:^.¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯_/'...'/
\.................'...../
\'...\.......... _.·´
\..............(

..
Have a nice summer, I think I am out of here for now.
Best wishes,




/´¯/)
/¯../ /
/..../ /
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯.`·¸
/'/.../..../.....:^.¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯_/'...'/
\.................'...../
\'...\.......... _.·´
\..............(





Stan is a man of (very) few words.

/´¯/)
/¯../ /
/..../ /
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯.`·¸
/'/.../..../.....:^.¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯_/'...'/
\.................'...../
\'...\.......... _.·´
\..............(


Stan is a man of (very) few words.

It would be an insult to call him an intellectual.
Hans J

"Hans Jørgen Lassen" wrote in message
...(about Stan Booz):
Stan Booz wrote to Hans Jorgen Lassen:

/´¯/)
/¯../ /
/..../ /
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯.`·¸
/'/.../..../.....:^.¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯_/'...'/
\.................'...../
\'...\.......... _.·´
\..............(

Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") wrote to Stan Booz:
Stan is a man of (very) few words.

It would be an insult to call him an intellectual.
Hans J

"Thanks for being my ****** Nick.
StanB"
--Stan Booz (17 March 2004)

--Nick (one of the 'unpeople')

..
"Thanks for being my ****** Nick.
StanB"
--Stan Booz (17 March 2004)


Somewhat confusing, given the needless duplication of the author's name by
Nick Bourbaki. This really should read:


"Thanks for being my ******, Nick."
-- Stan Booz (March 17, 2004)


Why Stan would have capitalized the offensive word, "******," is beyond me.
The ommision of a comma, I can understand.




("NoMoreChess") wrote to Stan Booz:
Stan is a man of (very) few words.


In fact, I did *not* write that to Stan Booz, as Nick Bourbaki has mistakenly
claimed.
Had I written this to Stan, I would have said: "You are a man of (very) few
words, Stan."
But as can easily be seen, I opined (to everyone, including unknown lurkers):
"Stan is a man of (very) few words.

In sum, it is often better to let people read things for themselves, rather
than muck things up by attempting to "interpret" for them, Nick.


-- nomorechess

Greg Kennedy's ('NoMoreChess') characteristically dishonest trolling posts
warrant no response beyond disdain. I write this post only to emphasise
the accuracy of my quoting.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote:
Nick quoted:
"Thanks for being my ****** Nick.
StanB"
--Stan Booz (17 March 2004)

Somewhat confusing, given the needless duplication of the author's name
by Nick Bourbaki. This really should read:

"Thanks for being my ******, Nick."
-- Stan Booz (March 17, 2004)

That's a characteristic dishonest distortion by Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess').

For the record, I quoted what Stan Booz wrote *exactly* as he wrote it
in *the conclusion of his post addressed to me* in the RGCP thread,
"March Chess Life--worst ever?" (17 March 2004):
"Thanks for being my ****** Nick.
StanB"

Google confirms the accuracy of my quotation of Stan Booz.

Why Stan would have capitalized the offensive word, "******," is beyond me.
The ommision of a comma, I can understand.

Greenmantle has written to Stan Booz to denounce a StanB post lying about me:

"This is a reprehensible slander, Mr. Booz. Nick did not write the above
and everyone, including you, know it. An apology is in order."
--Greenmantle (3 April 2004, RGCP: "Bill posted this on chess.misc")

Nick wrote:
Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") wrote to Stan Booz:
Stan is a man of (very) few words.

In fact, I did *not* write that to Stan Booz,
as Nick Bourbaki has mistakenly claimed.

Greg Kennedy's ('NoMoreChess') post was addressed to Stan Booz in this thread
according to the order of the posts.

...
In sum, it is often better to let people read things for themselves,
rather than muck things up by attempting to "interpret" for them, Nick.

Lance Smith ('Liam Too') has proudly cited the support of Greg Kennedy
('NoMoreChess') when Lance Smith fabricated 'quotations' personally attacking
me and 'attributed' those 'quotations' to other writers in the chess newsgroups.

--Nick

..
Regardless of what the habitual liar, Nick Bourbaki, might claim, my post was
*clearly* worded as a general observation, and not specifically directed to
just Stan Booz, as I already demonstrated (the liar, Nick Bourbaki, snipped
that part deliberately).
I point this out only for the benefit of any newbies here, who are not
already familiar with Nick's serious problem with lying, and now it seems,
dishonest snipping as well.
If Nick wishes to continue his innumerable complaints about others unfairly
snipping what he wrote, he should bear in mind how incredibly silly he looks
when he commits the same offense -- especially in view of the fact that his
snipping was obviously a deliberate act to hide the truth.




Once again, it is grammatically correct to insert a comma in Stan's offensive
sentence, and I still am in the dark as to why he capitalized the word
"******."

Nick seems to be crying out for sympathy, for someone to lash out at Stan for
his crime, but no one has yet responded. What happenned to Mark Trollsby? He
did serve the "useful" purpose of stroking Nick's ego, if nothing else.



For clarification, I will give the exact "duplication" to which I had
referred, and which Nick-the-liar has dismissed:


"Thanks for being my ****** Nick.
StanB"
--Stan Booz (17 March 2004)


While a dullard like Nick may not be able to decipher which part is
superfluous, most people will realize that the "StanB" and "--Stan Booz" are
roughly equivalent.
Nick, of course, is unable to quote where I allegedly claimed that his
quotation was incorrect, since I never made any such claim.
It must be rough, being quite so dimwitted. Perhaps I have been too hard on
Nick....