What "<any>" member did I besmirch? Next!

<and repeat offenders will be sanctioned—notwithstanding the fact that such flippant attacks are the veritable <epitome> of an individual who must resort to the <clumsiest> and most <juvenile> of smears, rather than engage in anything that remotely resembles legitimate discussion.

Such shenanigans simply won't be tolerated—if they ever were. Rest assured that this statement represents the <unanimous> consensus opinion of both site Ownership <and> Admin, and therefore, such defamatory posts are precisely the sort of snot-nosed tactic which should be assiduously avoided moving forward.

Kapiche?>

"Furthermore, anyone who thinks they can <cavalierly> taunt, defy, or challenge the Admin will be dealt with severely sooner or later. <Our patience is at an end>. Those who wish to dig themselves a deeper hole—one from which they won't be able to climb out—keep shoveling..."

The last three years have featured blatant favoritism - Historians over Vandals, "colorful characters" over responsible kibitzers, criminals over victims - along with a maddening inconsistency enforcing the Posting Guidelines. Indeed, you have spoken out against these situations many times. Recent developments indicate things may be better and not worse, so we should give them more time to figure things out.

Knock yourself out. Of course, patently spurious "reports" will be given all the attention they are due.

Furthermore, in reviewing the post which contains the reference you cited, I don't see where it was directed at <any> specific member.

I sincerely doubt that DF would be pleased with this. He is probably spinning in his grave in indignation.

Who do you believe is doing that?

OhioChessFan chessforum (kibitz #18545)

<I believe the two people who used the webmaster's death to accuse another poster of causing that death were taking advantage.>

It's clear he did not like the shenanigans of outright flaming post-Freeman (probably before even then) and he wants to do something about it.

As the new webmaster, that's his prerogative.

Sorry, <ocf>. What does that mean?>

Are you really that dim?

If you speculate A caused B.

Perhaps you and I would have reacted differently to the warning posted here and replied to <chessgames.com> with a more measured response, but <the admins> have an implicit obligation to set the tone of the site. To deny any obligation would demonstrate a lack of respect that the <Admins> stated is the intended goal of enforcing the posting guidelines.

Are you really that dim? >

It's possible. Or, in Jim's defense (what is this world coming to? I am giving him benefit of the doubt!) maybe he hasn't seen this post:

chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #31037)

But I expect that he has, and is just trying to goad <OCF> to spell it out.

That way, Jim can maintain plausible deniability, yet, highlight it for the admins, just as he did with <BP>:

"I didn't want <BP> banned!", he said. Yet he continued to highlight <BP>'s most offensive posts!

Jim will try to goad you into specifics, and most likely then use the "Blow the whistle" function, and pretend all along he didn't want you suspended.>

I will not use the blow-the-whistle function. (And I never used it against <tga> either.)

However, earlier today <ocf> wrote the following:

<It was totally pointless, as the final answer was going to be known soon enough. And as it turned out.......>

I would like to know what that means before commenting.

Because if I comment on what I think it means, I will immediately be accused of inventing things.

So, what does "as it turned out" refer to?>

<saffuna: I referenced it repeatedly>>