I am writing this post today to set straight the factual record with regard
to a direct personal attack by Tim Hanke, who *created* this thread only for
that purpose. The direct ancestor of this thread was named, "Tim Hanke's
Cultural Prejudice", which was created by Don Mihokovich, *not* me.

Tim Hanke has not written to me recently; after I have completed my responses
to his previous attacks, I hope that our posts here will *never* cross paths
again. I have no interest in Tim Hanke's USCF political career, and he can
continue fighting with his many USCF political enemies in RGCP (which I don't
follow) without any interference by me. Hanke's "Internet Stalker" epithet
for me is ludicrous.

"He was a falsehood done in flesh and blood."
--Mark Twain (The Gilded Age)

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message news:
hVuGa.1227878$F1.144099@sccrnsc04...
The Internet Stalker "Nick" wrote ...

Note: Without indicating it here, Tim Hanke snipped Igor Kulikov's post of
9 June 2003 in the ancestral thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice".
That was the (snipped) post from which I would be quoting below.

Lately, Tim Hanke has been insisting to me that he adheres to 'the rules
of these newsgroups' by writing posts only about chess subjects.

Nick,

I never said that. As usual, you are not being truthful. Your nose must be a
yard long by now.

I never claimed that the specific quoted phrase, 'the rules of these
newsgroups', was written by Tim Hanke. In fact, it was written by Igor
Kulikov, which would have been clear if his original post (reproduced below)
had been visible to the reader. But Tim Hanke already had snipped it.

On 9 June 2003 in the ancestral thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice",
Igor Kulikov wrote about Tim Hanke (the complete post):
"He violates *the rules of these newsgroups*. He propagates racism. The
moderator of these newsgroups would kick him out. He doesn't deserve to be
a member of these newsgroups."

The context of that dispute between Tim Hanke and me was Hanke's contention
that his writings in chess newsgroups were chess-related and that my writings
were not chess-related. As far as I know, both Tim Hanke and I often have
written on not strictly chess-related subjects here, yet both of us have
written on specific chess subjects. To his credit, when Tim Hanke writes on
technical chess subjects, his posts tend to seem more or less OK to me.

The truth is, I *often* write on subjects related to the newsgroups I post
on, whereas you *rarely* do.

A Usenet search should find many posts of mine here on specific chess subjects.

Your chess newsgroup posts probably break down like this:

66% Attacks on Tim Hanke in which you quote me out of context or outright lie
33% Random pretentious musings heavily padded by quotes
1% Random pretentious musings with a tenuous connection to chess

Tim Hanke has confused his wild surmise with statistical evidence.
Evidently, Hanke has not even read all my posts here, so he's in no position
to make a comprehensive statistical evaluation of their contents. Naturally,
Hanke tends to remember most any posts of mine wherein he's mentioned, but he's
mentioned much less often in proportion to my total output of posts than he
assumes.

On 21 April 2003, Larry Tapper wrote to me:
"I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc."

On 21 April 2003, Tim Hanke wrote to Larry Tapper about me:
"I too enjoy his (my) *scholarly digressions*, Latin epigrams, etc."

Now Tim Hanke characterises my "scholarly digressions" that he enjoys as
"random pretentious musings". So was Tim Hanke lying to Larry Tapper or
is Tim Hanke lying now?

I have quoted authorities on many subjects because my readers may prefer to
read their actual words instead of simply taking my word for what they wrote.

Since he created this thread to attack me, Tim Hanke has had about one month
to provide his evidence of my alleged "many lies" about him, and he has
provided *no evidence* of them whatsoever. Tim Hanke's accusation warrants
no further response beyond disdain.

Finally, let's examine Tim Hanke's claim that I frequently quote him out of
context. Hanke did not cite any examples, so let's take my most recent and
relevant usage of quoting him in the ancestral thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural
Prejudice":

On 8 June 2003, I wrote this post, with the relevant excerpt reproduced he
"Here's another of Tim Hanke's recent comments:
In the RGCM thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited' (2 June 2003), Tim Hanke wrote to
Bill Smythe: 'Bugger the Chinese....'..."

On 8 June 2003, Bill Anderson asked whether Tim Hanke really had written that.
In response to him, on 9 June 2003, Louis Blair wrote a post that reproduced
Tim Hanke's *complete post, including all his quoting of what Bill Smythe had
written*, to Bill Smythe. That evidence seemed sufficient to convince Bill
Anderson, and I considered it unnecessary to repeat what Louis Blair had done.

Nonetheless, on 11 June 2003, I posted a direct response to Bill Anderson,
wherein I quoted Tim Hanke's *complete original post*, though not including
what he had quoted from Bill Smythe's post. Louis Blair already had posted
all that in the thread.

Hence, Louis Blair and I accurately quoted Tim Hanke's "Bugger the Chinese"
remark within the complete context of both Bill Smythe's and Tim Hanke's posts.

Anyone interested may read all those posts in the ancestral thread,
"Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice".

"It was important throughout the trial to keep the focus on (David) Irving
all the time, to plug away at his distortions and manipulations of the
documentary evidence and to expose the racist and extremist opinions that
had led him to engage in such a betrayal of the historian's calling."
--Richard Evans (Lying About Hitler, p. 263)

fiat lux
--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
m...

I am writing this post today to set straight the factual record with
regard
to a direct personal attack by Tim Hanke, who *created* this thread only
for
that purpose. The direct ancestor of this thread was named, "Tim Hanke's
Cultural Prejudice", which was created by Don Mihokovich, *not* me.

Tim Hanke has not written to me recently; after I have completed my
responses
to his previous attacks, I hope that our posts here will *never* cross
paths
again. I have no interest in Tim Hanke's USCF political career, and he
can
continue fighting with his many USCF political enemies in RGCP (which I
don't
follow) without any interference by me. Hanke's "Internet Stalker"
epithet
for me is ludicrous.

"He was a falsehood done in flesh and blood."
--Mark Twain (The Gilded Age)

Hey Bwana Nick, we're still waiting to here about this great country from
which you hail. Until that you're just another phony.

StanB

"He speaks with forked tongue."
--Chief Red Cloud

"StanB" wrote in message ...
"Nick" wrote in message
m...
I am writing this post today to set straight the factual record with regard
to a direct personal attack by Tim Hanke, who *created* this thread only
for that purpose. The direct ancestor of this thread was named, "Tim
Hanke's Cultural Prejudice", which was created by Don Mihokovich, *not* me.

Tim Hanke has not written to me recently; after I have completed my
responses to his previous attacks, I hope that our posts here will *never*
cross paths again. I have no interest in Tim Hanke's USCF political career
and he can continue fighting with his many USCF political enemies in RGCP
(which I don't follow) without any interference by me. Hanke's "Internet
Stalker" epithet for me is ludicrous.

"He was a falsehood done in flesh and blood."
--Mark Twain (The Gilded Age)

(StanB snipped the rest of my post, which may be read in this thread.)

Hey Bwana Nick, we're still waiting to here about this great country from
which you hail. Until that you're just another phony.

StanB

Since Tim Hanke *created* this thread to make a direct personal attack
on me by accusing me of having written "many lies" about him, Tim
Hanke has *failed* to provide any *evidence* here to support his
sweeping accusation against me.

Hence, Tim Hanke's broad accusation that I have written "many lies"
about him does not warrant any response beyond disdain. And whenever
Tim Hanke decides to reiterate his baseless accusation without
providing sufficient supporting evidence, that base action brings
dishonour only to Tim Hanke, none to me.

Now StanB has come back in his characteristic belligerent, insolent
form. Evidently, StanB has stereotyped me as a black African, who
(according to the obstinately ignorant StanB) must welcome being
addressed in Swahili, and he insists on continuing to call me 'Bwana'
(a Swahili term), even though I have informed him several times that
it's inappropriate. Of course, racists like StanB tend to be
extremely reluctant learners.

'A very remarkable people the Zulus: they defeat our generals; they
convert our bishops; they have settled the fate of a great European
dynasty.'
--Benjamin Disraeli

In fact, most Africans (such as the Zulus) don't speak Swahili and
should not welcome being addressed as 'Bwana'. So why does StanB
keep inappropriately addressing me as 'Bwana'? Might StanB be
seeking to practise his Swahili with me?

In the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited' (26 May 2003), StanB wrote
to Mark Houlsby (here's StanB's complete original post):
"Sieg Heil!
StanB"

"Sieg Heil!" is an infamous Nazi slogan, which was used to salute
Hitler. But might StanB have been seeking to practise his German
with Mark Houlsby?

In the thread, 'A new enemy of Lev Khariton' (25 May 2003), StanB
wrote to me: (StanB's complete original post, his quotes snipped):
"I ask you this Bwana Nick, have you ever eaten pygmy?
StanB"

So would StanB appreciate this response?
'Pumbavu! Mimi ni askari Mdaichi.' :-)

StanB wrote (above, in his post to which I am responding here):
"Hey Bwana Nick, we're still waiting to here (sic) about this great
country from which you hail. Until that you're just another phony."

StanB's sudden confession of his ignorance about 'my homeland' is
surprising. Previously, in the 'Zhang Zhong revisited' thread, StanB
has written at some length about my supposed 'homeland', denouncing
it for its alleged cultural practices of cannibalism, murder, and
genocide. I have to say that StanB has got things backward he
one should identify one's target clearly *before*, not *after*,
one bombs it into rubble (though sometimes the United States also
has got things similarly backward).

And I don't understand why StanB seems so obsessed with regard to
my national origin(s). Surely, no one is responsible for one's
place of birth, and I never would think any less of anyone else on
account of that. Also, as far as I know, some United States laws
prohibit discrimination against any person on account of one's
national origin(s). So why does StanB seem so intent here on
violating at least the spirit of those laws?

I don't recall ever having specifically discussed 'my country',
'my nation', or 'my homeland' here, let alone having extolled it,
as StanB has implied. Can StanB provide any evidence that I have
boasted about 'my great country'? Of course, being unable to
identify my supposed 'homeland' has not prevented racists such
as StanB and Briarroot from already condemning it or its culture(s).

And I don't understand the continuing practice here of being called
a 'liar' or a 'phony' without attaching supporting evidence by Tim
Hanke or StanB. But I am not an expert on the 'political culture'
of some extreme right-wing jingoistic American racists.

fiat lux
--Nick

Nick (The Liar) wrote:

Since Tim Hanke *created* this thread to make a direct personal attack
on me by accusing me of having written "many lies" about him, Tim
Hanke has *failed* to provide any *evidence* here to support his
sweeping accusation against me.

I also called you a liar and a phony and I *did* provide evidence
in the form of your own quoted messages. You haven't yet answered
those charges. According to your usual practice, you'll probably
wait a few weeks until the casual readers have forgotten just what
was said, then you'll falsify a quote or two to 'prove' you were
'unfairly' accused. You're a liar, Nick - plain and simple.


Hence, Tim Hanke's broad accusation that I have written "many lies"
about him does not warrant any response beyond disdain. And whenever
Tim Hanke decides to reiterate his baseless accusation without
providing sufficient supporting evidence, that base action brings
dishonour only to Tim Hanke, none to me.

Your own falsehoods provide all the dishonor you can carry.


Now StanB has come back in his characteristic belligerent, insolent
form. Evidently, StanB has stereotyped me as a black African, who
(according to the obstinately ignorant StanB) must welcome being
addressed in Swahili, and he insists on continuing to call me 'Bwana'
(a Swahili term), even though I have informed him several times that
it's inappropriate. Of course, racists like StanB tend to be
extremely reluctant learners.

You are very poor at reading the evidence. StanB never said you
were African, you've overplayed this hand, as usual.


In fact, most Africans (such as the Zulus) don't speak Swahili and
should not welcome being addressed as 'Bwana'. So why does StanB
keep inappropriately addressing me as 'Bwana'? Might StanB be
seeking to practise his Swahili with me?

Nah, that was just his way of expressing his disrespect for you.


In the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited' (26 May 2003), StanB wrote
to Mark Houlsby (here's StanB's complete original post):
"Sieg Heil!
StanB"

"Sieg Heil!" is an infamous Nazi slogan, which was used to salute
Hitler. But might StanB have been seeking to practise his German
with Mark Houlsby?

Nah, that was just his way of expressing his disrespect for you.


In the thread, 'A new enemy of Lev Khariton' (25 May 2003), StanB
wrote to me: (StanB's complete original post, his quotes snipped):
"I ask you this Bwana Nick, have you ever eaten pygmy?
StanB"

So would StanB appreciate this response?
'Pumbavu! Mimi ni askari Mdaichi.' :-)

Nah, that was just his way of expressing his disrespect for you.


I don't recall ever having specifically discussed 'my country',
'my nation', or 'my homeland' here, let alone having extolled it,
as StanB has implied. Can StanB provide any evidence that I have
boasted about 'my great country'? Of course, being unable to
identify my supposed 'homeland' has not prevented racists such
as StanB and Briarroot from already condemning it or its culture(s).

This is going to come as a shock to your Lickspittle, Houlsby.
But then, he's got his head so far up your ass he can no longer
see the light of day.


And I don't understand the continuing practice here of being called
a 'liar' or a 'phony' without attaching supporting evidence by Tim
Hanke or StanB.

I already posted direct evidence of your lies. You've so far
avoided responding. Why?

But I am not an expert on the 'political culture'
of some extreme right-wing jingoistic American racists.

So anyone who notices your lies is an "extreme right-wing jingoistic
American racist?" No, you certainly aren't an expert on political
culture! LOL

From: Briarroot
Date: 18/07/03 23:59 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

From: Briarroot
Date: 18/07/03 10:09 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Nick (The Liar) wrote:

Once again Briarroot betrays his psychopathic tendencies. Nick has *never*
lied
in this group. Briarroot has been caught in a lie *several times*, but
cheerfully ignores the fact.

Your slavish adoration of Nick is disgusting! Twice now you've
claimed to have refuted my allegations, yet you never came close
to a refutation, you just dithered away on side issues, typical
behavior of the prevaricator.

Give *specific* examples, so that we may discuss these.

You failed to address the specific
issues involved; which is also Nick's usual trick.


Psychopathic nonsense.

to reiterate: (in simple language that even you should be able to
understand)...

#1- Nick lied when he said that I found that school yard ditty to
be "deliciously humorous" when what I really wrote, (and I quoted
the entire passage) was that I found *his belief* that it was in
common usage to be deliciously humorous. It was his belief that I
found funny, not the ditty itself. This was plainly stated in my
post and Nick deliberately lied about it; it was no mere mistake
on his part. He repeated the lie twice.


Ok. This is trolling, pure and simple. A perfunctory Google search of these
groups for the derogatory racist term: "Ching Chong Chinaman" produced NINETEEN
results. Here is a link to the first page (a link to the second page is to be
found at the bottom of it):

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L23864155

So, once again, *addressing your specific request, above* let's examine those
results carefully:

Result number one:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I16832155

"Ok, let's take this from the top, shall we?

From: Briarroot
Date: 13/07/03 09:21 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Mark Houlsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

Note that Briarroot, being a ****wit, finds it necessary (instead of
constructing a worthwhile argument) continuously to misconstrue my motives in a
derogatory fashion.

My motives had already been *clearly explained* to him in a post which I wrote
in the thread: "Zhang Zhong Revisited"

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3AD13045

Date: 2003-05-02 16:52:05 PST

Mhoulsby wrote:

"Ummm... no. Qualitatively speaking, my intervention in this thread is no
different from my having intervened he

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I25E22D64

...in support of someone else who, like Mr. Bourbaki, I happen hardly to know.
In that instance, it happened to be Mr. Matt Nemmers, who, it seemed to me, had
been unwarrantedly insulted by Mr. Wlodzimierz Holsztynski. To me, these
circumstances (which is to say: your having unwarrantedly attacked Mr.
Bourbaki) are qualitatively indistinguishable.

No doubt you will protest that I intervened on behalf of Mr. Nemmers because
I'm a fool who thinks that *he, too* is clever, and that I wanted to "kiss his
ass" to paraphrase you. Well, Mr. Nemmers might tell you otherwise. He might
also tell you that he and I hardly know each other (we have never met).

Therefore, my intervention was due to my having been disappointed to observe
that a fellow member of this group (Mr. Nemmers) who, it seems to me, deserves
respect, had been unwarrantedly abused by another member of this group (Mr.
Holsztynski), just as here, a fellow member of this group (Mr. Bourbaki) who,
it seems to me, deserves respect, has been unwarrantedly abused by another
member of this group (you)."


Naturally, Briarroot is such a ****wit that he didn't understand this clear
explanation.




Briarroot wrote in message
...
Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

From: Briarroot


As to the charge of lying, I take it you haven't read the
Lev Khariton thread.

I have read it, in its entirety. Nowhere has Bourbaki lied in it.

I cited chapter and verse, I offered positive proof. You were just
complaining about my alleged inability to read, which is surprising
give your own clear lack in that area!



This is a typical, blatant lie. *Precisely* what chapter and verse did
you cite?

Quotes please.

Nick wrote:
Needless to say, when, at his specific *demand*, I proved Briarroot
wrong about the contemporary existence of the racist expression,
"Ching Chong Chinaman" in the United States, Briarroot did *not*
thank me. Instead, he became enraged and responded by writing
(9 May 2003) in the thread, "Zhang Zhong revisited": "Blow it out
your ass, Nick!"

Briarroot wrote:
This is another one of your blatant lies. Yes I told you to blow
it out your ass, but not as the response you've indicated here.

Here is the full text of that post: (the only post I made on May
9th.

[Nick wrote:
[
[
[ Then how fearless would the 'thick-skinned' Briarroot be if he
[ 'assumed' that he could be treated with reciprocal consideration,
[ or lack thereof?
[
[Blow it out your ass, Nick!
[
[Has Zhang Zhong complained about the NIC article?
[That's the only relevant question. Racism is not
[the subject. All your blather is a fruitless attempt
[at diversion.
[
[You're a typical example of the politically correct
[nanny personality.

As all can now see, Nick is revealed as a shameless liar.


On the contrary, the ****wit Briarroot is clearly incapable of understanding
that Bourbaki *proved* that he, Briarroot, is the liar, here.

Bourbaki cited *specific* references which *completely refuted* Briarroot's
*deliberately false* assertion.

To wit: Bourbaki has *met* GM Xie Jun. He quoted an open letter which Xie wrote
partly out of frustration at the general mistreatment, in the west, of Chinese
people, partly out of her having been frustrated by some lies told by GM Susan
Polgár about Xie in her book: "Queen Of The King's Game".

Here is the link to what Bourbaki wrote *over two months ago*:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25E26045

....and here is what he wrote:

(Nick) wrote in message
m...
GM Xie Jun can speak English quite well, and she told me that she has not
always been pleased (to put it diplomatically) by how the Western media have
treated her. I never put Briarroot's specific question, 'Should you prefer
that the Western media use your name correctly or incorrectly?', to Xie Jun,
of course, because then she could have assumed that I am as 'obtuse' as
Briarroot.

forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit (Virgil)

Briarroot has made some unwarranted and offensive speculations (which he
regards as 'obvious' fact) about a conversation between GM Xie Jun and me.
Given that Briarroot was not present then, I can only wonder why his amazing
psychic powers are not being exploited more usefully elsewhere.

GM Xie Jun's general attitude toward any inaccurate reports about her in the
Western media can be understood from her comments in her open letter to
GM Zsuzsa Polgar (the asterisks are mine for emphasis):

'Having finished my match against Alisa Galliamova, I finally have the *time
and energy* to reply to the open letters and comments you published on your
web site, some of which I felt were directed to me personally....During the
last *two years*, I have been following the updates on your web site, read
your book with patience and studied your letters to FIDE carefully. Now I
feel *obliged* to write this open letter in order to clear up some issues.
I *did not reply earlier* for the simple reason that I decided to *save my
energy* for a real chess match.

Let me start by saying that I am not the person as *depicted* in your book
"Queen of the King's Game" which, in my opinion, is full of *incorrect
assumptions*. I cannot begin to understand why you should write about me and
members of my team *as if you knew exactly what we were thinking*. And I guess
that phrases like "she defeated the forces of communism..." sell better than
the more modest "she defeated an ordinary player from China..." Still, I
*take offense* to the manifold *violation of the truth* in your story and the
*ill-natured style* of writing.
....
I do not expect a personal reply to this letter, since I intend to keep myself
*busy with more meaningful things than practice English prose*....I am *only
interested* in hearing whether we will meet each other over the chessboard or
not. I look forward to that. *Let the games do the talking*.'

-- GM Xie Jun (30 August 1999)

Hence, it's clear that GM Xie Jun was aware that some inaccurate, not to
mention some personally offensive, reports (perhaps not all stemming from the
book, "Queen of the King's Game") about her and other Chinese players were
circulating in the Western media for years. Yet she (and they) did nothing
about that until she felt 'obliged' to write a single open letter to the media.
That was the entire response.

GM Xie Jun's public statements are consistent with what she told me.
She's a petite woman, 'suaviter in modo, fortiter in re' (gentle in manner,
resolute in deed).

I asked her how she felt about the Western media's treatment of her and other
Chinese players of her acquaintance. Her reply was couched in diplomatic
terms, yet she seemed annoyed by that subject. She said that, in her opinion,
the media had some room for improvement. Sometimes they seemed careless about
checking their facts (such as inverting Chinese names); and sometimes they,
without asking, made some inaccurate assumptions about Chinese players.

I asked her about the common Western perception that she, vis-a-vis the
Polgars,
could be considered a kind of 'undeserving' or even an 'illegitimate' women's
world champion. Upset by that subject, understandably, she said that she had
won her title (actually, FIDE's title) by fair play under the rules. If other
people had a problem with that, then that's their problem, not hers. She did
not feel obliged to defend herself in the media, and she would not dignify it
by further comment.

My impression was that GM Xie Jun was not unaware of, or indifferent to, some
inaccurate reports about her in the Western media. She could 'take offence'.
Yet she simply felt that she had more important things to do in her life than
to make the effort needed to correct it (*if* the media would be cooperative)
every time that it happened. As just observed in the case of 'New in Chess',
that 'if' still seems to be there.

GM Xie Jun's response should be considered normal and appropriate within her
culture. There's significant cultural variation in the readiness to complain
publicly. (Not everyone else's as quick as some Americans to 'get in your face'
and file lawsuits.) Resolving disputes in protracted public confrontations
is not the preferred way for most Chinese.

Also, the Chinese are rightly proud of their civilisation's extraordinarily
long and illustrious history of achievements. 'Zhongguo' (the Middle Country)
tends to be perceived as the centre of the world. Traditionally, the Chinese
tend to expect that the 'barbarians' would not be able to understand them or
their ways, and they hardly seem to care about whatever the 'barbarians' may
think about them.

Please note that the issue of misusing Chinese names has a much broader scope
than its extremely narrow application to a single Chinese GM, Zhang Zhong.
(Would Briarroot argue that a mere Chinese IM had no right yet to complain?)
This issue may concern anyone with a traditional Chinese name that's liable
to be misused. I have met many Chinese, and I can attest that every person
would appreciate having one's name used correctly instead of incorrectly.
And I appreciate being corrected whenever, though I try my best, I don't
quite pronounce someone's name correctly.

I regard that as common sense and common courtesy.
On the other hand, evidently, Briarroot finds the misuse of Chinese names
to be enjoyable and hilarious.

In his initial post in this thread, Briarroot wrote:
LOL Nope, I'm grinning from ear to ear. That Jan Timman is
my kind of guy! ;-)

fiat lux
--Nick"

posted by: "Nick" Date: 2003-05-04 20:52:55 PST

For anyone who may be interested, the complete text of GM Xie's open letter,
posted by Wayne Mendrick on September 3rd, 1999, is to be found he

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M26E25045

So, once again, we can clearly see that *anyone* who is not a ****wit like
Briarroot understands that GMs, such as Zhang and Xie, are *too busy* to
become embroiled in flame wars on usenet (Xie clearly explains as much).

Once again then, it is the ****wit Briarroot who is lying.


Nick wrote:
Hence, Briarroot "doubts" that "*any* (his emphasis) Chinese person"
could
"feel insulted" by being told, "Bugger the Chinese" (Tim Hanke's
comment).

For the record, many Chinese do understand what "bugger" means in
English.

Likewise, for the record, no Chinese person has posted that they
have been offended by the remarks of Tim Hanke, nor the NIC
article that sparked this so-called 'debate.'
How can Briarroot be *certain* that "no Chinese person has posted
that they (sic) have been offended"? Do Briarroot's psychic powers
enable him to identify every Chinese person on the internet? Of
course, elsewhere Briarroot already has made the implicit claim
that he can read Chinese minds without ever having to ask any
Chinese persons what they really think.

I wrote:
To repeat: You have no evidence that *anyone* anywhere, other than
yourself, has been offended. It's your *supposition* that I object
to, and for good reason. Turning your statement (above) around it
reads: 'Nick already had made the implicit claim that he can read
Chinese minds without ever having to ask any Chinese persons what
they really think.' What's sause for the goose, Nick, is sauce
for the gander. You've offered no proof whatsoever that anyone
was offended by the "Bugger the Chinese" remark, why should I be
held to a higher standard of evidence than yourself?

And again you are caught in a lie when you say that I have made
claims that I can read minds.


Again this is a complete lie. What Bourbaki wrote was not a claim that
Briarroot can read minds. Rather, in the same post from May the fourth as I
have reproduced above he wrote:

"Briarroot has made some unwarranted and offensive speculations (which he
regards as 'obvious' fact) about a conversation between GM Xie Jun and me.
Given that Briarroot was not present then, I can only wonder why his amazing
psychic powers are not being exploited more usefully elsewhere."

This is what is known as sarcasm, which has been called "the highest form of
wit".

In other words, Nick was employing *humour* to illustrate what a perfect
asshole Briarroot was making of himself then.

****wit that Briarroot is, he's *still* making a perfect asshole of himself
*over two months later*.

Briarroot: You wonder why GM Zhang hasn't complained about the misuse of his
name, yet here it is months later and *still* you don't understand that you're
being stupid and offensive. Why hasn't he complained?

Take a wild guess, ****wit.


and in an earlier post...

Nick wrote:
Previously, in the thread, 'Zhang Zhong revisited', Briarroot
apparently suggested that this "little school yard ditty" (his
phrase) among Americans seems "deliciously humorous" to him, a
white American:


to which I responded:
You are either a liar, or are guilty of prevarication in the worst
sense. What I clearly said was that it was your use of it as a
recent example of US racism that I found humorous, not the ditty
itself, which has been shown to be both old and British in origin,
in any case.

and then Nick was caught red-handed when he said:
I just looked up some older posts in the huge thread, 'Zhang Zhong
revisited'. So here's the relevant exact record of what Briarroot
and I wrote therein:

On 6 May 2003, Briarroot wrote to me about my statement that the racist
taunt, "Ching Chong Chinaman" exists (and recently existed) in the
United States: "You really believe this? The possibility that you may
think there is any truth in this is deliciously humorous! You never had
much credibility, but you've dished yourself here. I think all your
'observations' of life in the USA posses (sic) the same level of accuracy.
That is, none at all."

to which I responded:
Well, thank you Nick for admitting to your lie. What you've just
quoted proves that what I found "deliciously humorous" was your
*opinion* not as you just wrote: "Previously, in the thread, 'Zhang
Zhong revisited', Briarroot apparently suggested that this "little
school yard ditty" (his phrase) among Americans seems "deliciously
humorous" to him, a white American"

Are you now ready to apologize to me, Nick? You are a liar and
a prevaricator, you've just proved it to everyone, yet again.


In fact, once again it is the ****wit Briarroot who is caught in a lie.

Bourbaki *proved* (and cited references in support of that proof) that the
****wit Briarroot was, and, it seems, still is lying about the use of the
offensively racist rhyme: "Ching Chong Chinaman".

Here is the link to the post in which Nick wrote about the use of that rhyme:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G4FE35045

....and here is what he wrote, in full:

Briarroot wrote in message
...
Mark Houlsby wrote:
Seems to me that it's the other way around. Mr. Bourbaki has never
offended you, but you have offended him, and insulted both him and me,
repeatedly.

LOL Poor babies! You deserve it!

It's equally evident that you are incapable of arguing your case, and
that namecalling is your only recourse...

What *is* obvious is that you have no clue about what
is really going on in this thread. As I said before,
you have your nose buried so far up Nick's ass you can't
see the light of day anymore. How's the weather up there?
...
That little school yard ditty he quoted is British in origin.

Briarroot's 'little school yard ditty' (which he may consider inoffensive)
is the mocking taunt 'Ching-Chong Chinaman...', which Chinese and other Asians
consider offensive and racist.

Until a day or two ago, Briarroot had been vehemently denying that 'Ching-Chong

Chinaman' 'was ever uttered a single time by anybody, anywhere, at any time'
or, at least, not in the United States since 'about 1935'.

Whether it's 'British in origin' is questionable; one needs to verify sources.
It's true that variations of 'Ching-Chong Chinaman' exist in English-speaking
societies outside the United States. I don't know of any evidence that it
was transplanted from the United Kingdom to the United States, which won its
national independence long before there was any Chinese population in it.
The taunt 'Ching-Chong Chinaman' could not have survived in popular culture
unless and until there were enough Chinese present who could be taunted.

The playground chants that I cited seem indigenously American:

Ching Chong Chinaman went to milk a cow
Ching Chong Chinaman didn't know how
Ching Chong Chinaman pulled the wrong tit
Ching Chong Chinaman covered in ****.

Ching Chong Chinaman
Sitting on a wall
Along came a white man
And chopped his head off.

What is at issue here is your unrelentingly offensive behaviour.

Bull****! The issue here is the NIC article, you hopeless idiot.

That says it all.

--Nick


Again, this was *two months ago*, yet, it seems, only the ****wit Briarroot is
*still* incapable of understanding that it is he, Briarroot, who has *yet
again* been caught in a lie, yet again he has been found to be behaving as
offensively as possible.

All proof positive that Nick has deliberately engaged in a campaign
of lies and distortions: claiming I said one thing, when I actually
said something completely different; claiming I responded to one of
his posts one way, when I actually was responding to a completely
different post. He glosses over the truth in an attempt to improve
his shaky arguments. He falsifies quotes to make himself look good,
all the while loudly proclaiming that this is my tactic, which it has
never been. I snip what I consider to be irrelevant, I respond only
to what I am quoting. Nick also falsely claims that I engage in over
generalizations, "reading minds" as he puts it, but then he uses
exactly the same tactic himself. He is a phony (which is what I have
suspected all along) and I have just proved it.



All utter bull****. All of it disproved above. Bourbaki has *never* lied in
these groups. The ****wit Briarroot's lies grow bigger and bigger, each to
cover the last.

How many times do you need to be told to provide *evidence* (in the
way that Nick does)?

You give yourself honors you don't deserve; you aren't in a position
to tell me anything. The real question is, how many times will you be
faced with Nick's duplicity before you recognize it?


Now Briarroot sounds like a psychopath who projects his own psychiatric
problems onto others.

Without it you are a charlatan and a ****wit.

Your arguments, like your opinions are worthless.


There are those who would disagree with you:

This post:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X62F21045

"Interesting post.

It was. I'm awestruck. Excellent post by Mark.

-- Steve Lopez

Date: 2000-12-19 21:19:00 PST"

....was a response to my first ever usenet post, in the thread: "Caro-Kann and
Slav"

In this post:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S15F21045

Hal Tynan wrote to me:

"As always, thanks for your sound advice.
Hal"

In this post:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V16F25045

....after a I posted a game by Gligoric in response to his request for good
games in which the queens have come off, Alan O'Brien wrote:

"Thank you Seamus and Mhoulsby!
Alan"

In this post:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y19F21045

Roman Parparov wrote:

" To add to Mark's perfect explanation, I'll tell you that ..."

So much for my opinions' being worthless, then.

Mark"

Posted by: Mark Houlsby
Date: 2003-07-13 16:06:06 PST

Result #2 is the post of yours to which my post, reproduced *yet again* AT YOUR
REQUEST replied. Anyone who is not as ****witted as you are can clearly discern
that you are a troll...:

The remaining results are similar occasions upon which you have been blown out
of the water. Not a good start, then...

The more you do this, the worse you look.

#2- Nick lied when he said that after he proved the contemporary
existence of this ditty (which I was forced to acknowledge), that
my response was to write "Blow it out your ass, Nick." When in
fact I used that phrase in an entirely different thread, and *not*
in a the thread where the ditty was discussed. Period. He lied.


Oh, but it was discussed in that thread, and in fact it *appears* in the very
post to which the incriminating "Blow it out..." phrase of yours was used

Here is a link to the post in which a part of that very discussion is
reproduced:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L4E865155

Here is a long excerpt which, once again, proves that *you* have lied
throughout this discussion:

"Briarroot wrote in message
...
Mark Houlsby (The Particularly Obtuse Twit) wrote:
Briarroot wrote in message
...
Nick (The Overly Wordy Twit) wrote:
Among ethnic Chinese growing up in the United States, a common
experience is being exposed to the mocking taunt, 'Ching-chong
Chinaman!', (or worse). The Chinese consider it offensive and racist;
the taunters (who usually are members of the majority group) tend to
consider it enjoyable and hilarious....

You really believe this? The possibility that you
may think there is any truth in this is deliciously
humorous!

You never had much credibility, but you've dished
yourself here. I think all your 'observations' of
life in the USA posses the same level of accuracy.
That is, none at all.

The lengths to which you are prepared to go in order to maintain your
"determinedly ignorant" disposition really does continue to stagger
the mind. What *exactly* is inaccurate and/or "hilarious" about Mr.
Bourbaki's statement concerning the scourge of racism? ...

You poor pathetic fool. You haven't a clue what I
found humorous about that post. I was laughing at
Nick's idea of "common experience" in the USA
referencing language which hasn't been seen since
about 1935. It seems like he gets these ideas from
pre-war movies.

In fact, my information about anti-Asian racism (anti-Chinese racism is a
major subset) in the United States comes from American sources: friends,
scholars, and journalists (much of the Asian-American media is accessible on
the internet), who are not necessarily of Asian heritage themselves.

My thoughtful white American friends are much less ignorant (and not committed
to his bigoted absolute denial) than Briarroot of the realities of anti-Asian
racism in the United States. They tend to believe that the tragic history
of American racism ought to be fully and honestly recognised by all Americans.
Only then will all Americans be able to work together to deny racism its
continuing future in the United States.

The latest (March 2001) national scientific survey of 'American attitudes
toward Chinese Americans and Asian Americans' found that 25% of Americans
openly expressed ' *strong* negative attitudes and stereotypes against Chinese
and Asian Americans'. The survey also found that American attitudes and
stereotypes of 'Chinese Americans' were 'nearly identical' to those of 'Asian
Americans' in general.

Here's a summary of that survey:

http://www.committee100.org/Publishe...es/042501.html

Here's the complete report (you need to have Acrobat Reader installed):

http://www.committee100.org/Published/C100survey.pdf

'The results of this first comprehensive survey of American attitudes toward
Asian Americans is *disturbing*. It tells us that prejudice *continues* to
be a part of the American landscape.'
--Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (2001)

Briarroot's dogmatic contention that American racist language about Chinese,
or Asians in general (As the scientific survey above found, most Americans
tend *not* to differentiate in their stereotypes among Asian ethnic groups.),
'hasn't been seen since about 1935' is *ludicrous*.

My thoughtful American friends who were veterans of the Second World War,
Korean War, or Vietnam War (each took place after 1935) have told me that
they were exposed to racist wartime propaganda designed to dehumanize their
Asian enemies (as 'Japs', 'Chinks', or 'gooks') and to encourage them to hate
and to kill.

A good white American friend of mine (who's now one of the least racist persons
whom I have ever known) once told me that, as a young soldier in Vietnam, he
had used anti-Asian racist language (as did nearly every other American around
him) until eventually he grew up and learned better.

A Chinese American veteran of the Second World War once told me that, while
in the United States *after* the war, he, while still in his military uniform,
was repeatedly called a 'Jap' and threatened with violent assault by several
white American civilians"

snips rest

The post in which I called him on this was in the thread titled:
"A new enemy of Lev Khariton :-)" in r.g.c.m - go back and read it.


Ok here is a link to that post:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2F824155
:
Nick deliberately lied on both of these subjects. He may well
have been lying in other posts, as well, but I don't feel like
wading through all that muck just to prove what is now so obvious.

Nick did not lie in that post. If you have convinced yourself that he did, you
really need to see a good psychiatrist.

From the beginning I he has had a tendency to make generalizations
about his critics, while simultaneously accusing us of the same
fault.

Once again, no evidence supports this psychopathic nonsense.

Among his other sins, Nick is a hypocrite.


Once again no evidence.

You, in comparison are an merely amateur fool. And you're not even
very good at it. So go back to kissing Nick's ass. That's where
you display your only real talent.

Not true. I'm particularly good at watching paint dry.

Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

716 lines of utter bull**** on side issues.

You've just done the same thing you did earlier. You failed to
address a single point I raised. I was specific about when and
where Nick lied. Your pathetic attempt to 'prove' me wrong did
nothing at all, because you can't seem to address the issues.
Anyone who follows those links to google, that you intersperse
in your posts, will find out exactly the same thing: they aren't
relevant to the specific issues. Seemingly, you can't grasp the
issues, or are deliberately trying to cover for Nick by sending
everyone off on tangents.

You are either a pathetic liar, or a complete fool. There is no
other explanation for your prevarication.

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

716 lines of utter bull**** on side issues.

You've just done the same thing you did earlier. You failed to
address a single point I raised. I was specific about when and
where Nick lied. Your pathetic attempt to 'prove' me wrong did
nothing at all, because you can't seem to address the issues.
Anyone who follows those links to google, that you intersperse
in your posts, will find out exactly the same thing: they aren't
relevant to the specific issues. Seemingly, you can't grasp the
issues, or are deliberately trying to cover for Nick by sending
everyone off on tangents.

You are either a pathetic liar, or a complete fool. There is no
other explanation for your prevarication.

Thanks for proving my point again.

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

716 lines of utter bull**** on side issues.

You've just done the same thing you did earlier. You failed to
address a single point I raised. I was specific about when and
where Nick lied. Your pathetic attempt to 'prove' me wrong did
nothing at all, because you can't seem to address the issues.
Anyone who follows those links to google, that you intersperse
in your posts, will find out exactly the same thing: they aren't
relevant to the specific issues. Seemingly, you can't grasp the
issues, or are deliberately trying to cover for Nick by sending
everyone off on tangents.

You are either a pathetic liar, or a complete fool. There is no
other explanation for your prevarication.

Thanks for proving my point again.

You are a pathetic liar *and* a complete fool.

From: Briarroot
Date: 21/07/03 12:39 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Briarroot wrote in message
...
Mhoulsby (Nick's Lickspittle) wrote:

716 lines of utter bull**** on side issues.

You've just done the same thing you did earlier. You failed to
address a single point I raised. I was specific about when and
where Nick lied. Your pathetic attempt to 'prove' me wrong did
nothing at all, because you can't seem to address the issues.
Anyone who follows those links to google, that you intersperse
in your posts, will find out exactly the same thing: they aren't
relevant to the specific issues. Seemingly, you can't grasp the
issues, or are deliberately trying to cover for Nick by sending
everyone off on tangents.

You are either a pathetic liar, or a complete fool. There is no
other explanation for your prevarication.

Thanks for proving my point again.

You are a pathetic liar *and* a complete fool.


Thanks for proving my point again.

Mhoulsby wrote:

From: Briarroot

You are a pathetic liar *and* a complete fool.


Thanks for proving my point again.

Well someone has to to it for you, since you're incapable of
proving any points on your own.