<-------

However, mainly I'd just like to second <chancho's> last post.

Or as <OCF> sometimes puts it,

re- <The dreaded removed post explanation>

Were you able to reconstruct the "game" from the result, the way <phony benoni> does for chess games with mistakes in the middle of the score?

So far all I've gotten is that <tomlinsky> has a lobster avatar, and a mysterious character named <drik> may- or may not- be involved.

<tomlinsky> and <johnlspouge> were apparently referencing lobsters. It apparently was making some kind of reference to <patzer> Apparently whatever post connected <patzer> and lobsters was deleted. Thereupon I walked into the ongoing conversation at the point where a discussion of a flag waving lobster was referenced. I presume you know the slang references regarding rock lobsters and flag waving. I didn't know if the references were to the real McCoy of lobsters and flags, to the slang meanings, a double entendre, or a little of each. I then posted a picture of a flag waving lobster and <patzer> took great offense at that. Here's a post explaining my point of view (page 1844 if the link doesn't take you there) Kenneth Rogoff

One more question- did <Tomlinsky> get his flag waving lobster because of the <Ohio v. Lobster> game, or did he already have it?

I know Rock Lobster is a <B52 song>.

I wonder what <patzer's> connection to lobsters might be.

Possibly he is a "lobster farmer."

I know they exist. They might be a touchy breed for all anyone knows.

<We were at the beach
Everybody had matching towels
Somebody went under a dock
And there they saw a rock
It wasn't a rock
It was a rock lobster!>

Good grief...

And yet another funny poem from <tpstar>, he's definitely skilled at satire, there's no doubt about that.

I agree with your response to his most recent idea, however.

I think enforcement of posting guidelines should be handled solely by the two business owners.

I also found <tpstar's> comments about "elitism" among the "chessforum" crowd to be hypocritical and needlessly snide.

He himself is one of the most prominent members of that crowd, and more, his voice carries a lot of weight.

I hope he was including himself as one of the members of that crowd who should never be given power to instantaneously delete posts.

He's the last person at this website I'd give such power to. Yep the very last person.

Here's a scenario- <Tony> gets appointed and his first act as impartial post-policeman is to reduce the <Wesley So> page to the six posts that are in English.

Needless to say, I'd be a terrible choice also.

I think it's a bad idea to give such power to any site member, because we are all "stakeholders."

If more policing needs to be done, I think it more seemly for the admins to hire an outsider who has no stake in the website, no existing opinions about any of us here.

Just thought you would like to know.