Okay.

<This might be a site for chessplayers but even they have a finite boredom threshold.>

And yet <OCF> remained absolutely silent when <KS> was publicly accusing me of being the hacker.

I think that is rather hypocritical, but, sadly, expected.

<<OCF> ... Likewise the admins and. <GW>>

BS. Total unadulterated BS (and I'm not talking about the grammar).

<OCF> is just trolling - the admins here had a log of the hacks, an IP address, and posts from the same. Then they had emails connecting the socks from those IP's with <bippy>.

This has been stated by both <Susan> and <steve>.

Again, <OCF> is simply trolling.

* * * * *

<Rdb: They lost the point and you won the point ?>

I think yes but am okay with <Willber's> subsequent statement.

<Not so fast please . Let us see ...

The point that admins made was like : these posts of <gw>/<bp> show that he was (i) willing to cause damage to cg and (ii) capable of causing that damage.>

No, that wasn't their point. That was part of their "evidence". That doesn't even rise to the level of circumstancial evidence.

<Please explain clearly your refutation of these point points. I do not see any refutation from you of these two points>

You need to start quoting me if you want me to respond to you.

<Optimal play on the other hand tried to refute . His refutation was like> <<gw>/<bp> is stupid/fat, big mouth braggart /silly/immature but he is not evil >

<That is a good defence . Kind of the defence that we see in court cases in movies and in real life too <your honour , my client is not evil , he just mentally insane and that is why he committed murder >

Except that in such cases a psychiatric evaluation is needed.

2) so , please state your refutation clearly , <ocf>.

Like <optimal play> , is your defence for <gw >/<Bp> also the same : <<gw>/<bp> is stupid/big fat mouth braggart/silly/immature but not evil > ?>

No. If you'd quote me, you'd have no problem seeing I'm not defending him. I'm challenging the behavior of the admins. I note they haven't responded. Which is their right I suppose, but it gives an ugly impression of their character. <Miss Scarlett> has much the same view as me, I think, and has called out <Susan> on it, to no avail.

<If yes , then you guys need to produce evaluation from psychiatric/psychologist>

Moot.

<3) please allow me to repeat : just move on please - it is way too embarrassing for you guys.>

Stop already yourself.

<Please stop digging , hole you guys are in is way too deep already .>

I'm right in everything I've said on this matter. I've repeatedly said <GW> might be guilty as charged yet your incapacity to follow that is your problem, not mine.

<I appreciate your loyalty for <gw>/<bp> , i just wish destiny sends in your life only those people who deserve such loyalty .>

It clearly demonstrated the malevolence with which he regarded both <CG> and its members.

<<nok> More like two months>

<stone free or die: <<OCF> Fair enough. I'll note I have an infinite threshold for calling out injustice.> And yet <OCF> remained absolutely silent when <KS> was publicly accusing me of being the hacker.

I think that is rather hypocritical, but, sadly, expected.

<<OCF> ... Likewise the admins and. <GW>>

BS. Total unadulterated BS (and I'm not talking about the grammar).

<OCF> is just trolling - the admins here had a log of the hacks, an IP address, and posts from the same. Then they had emails connecting the socks from those IP's with <bippy>.

This has been stated by both <Susan> and <steve>.

Again, <OCF> is simply trolling.

* * * * *

And for the record, I know that <OCF> has me on ignore. That's clear evidence that he's not interested in Z-truth.>

<Miss Scarlett > has the same view as you have ? How do you figure that ?

Earlier may be he had the same view as you had when admins had not explained the proof . But then (i)admins explained the proof (ii) in the proof they explained clearly why the believe it was not someone impersonating <gw>/<bp> ( (a) ip addres and (b) email-id) (iii) admins also responded to <Missy> post about 'appeal made by steve' (iv) after that <Missy> asked a follow up question and admins replied to that question too (SQL injection)

(v) after that <Missy> did not say anything on this subject , so he is presumably satisfied , after all admins gave him all that he asked for on this subject

2) you on the other hand continuing on this subject without clearly mentioning what more you want , as i see it , you are still repeating the things that have been already answered by admins viz (i) could it be some one impersonating <gw>/<bp> (ii) appeal made by Steve .

3) may be I missed if you asking for something else .

Can you please say what you asking of admins which they have not already answered ?

Well , like <sfod> , i too got a bit frustrated and apparently i rubbed <ocf> wrong way and i regret that

I have tried to have civil and mutually respectful conversations with everyone including <ocf> (except <gw>/<bp> and two of his buddies who were hell bent on hurling insults/racist abuses)

I would be more careful in future and would not want to rub <ocf> wrong way - <ocf> has been civil and respectful to me throughout and he deserves the same civility and respect from me.

Well , au contraire ! I think you have reached your threshold , however , at the same time , you stand for clarity , completion and logical conclusion of this conversation.

So , it seems , like me , you too are like <guys , this conversation has reached its logical conclusion . Actions of admins were logical/justified in this case . If you guys disagree then please say clearly what else you want

and if you can not do that , then please move on graciously ...do not be in denial , do not act like sore loser and so on ...

Fair enough. I'll note I have an infinite threshold for calling out injustice. In this case, a chess metaphor: Maybe Carlsen really is correct about Niemann.>>>> But to publicly make a claim and then refuse to defend your claim is patently improper behavior.>

Everyone going around spouting off "innocent until proven guilty".

But that is a <legal> precedent.

Day-to-day human interactions don't operate that way.

You can get to know a person, and form an evaluation of that person, without ever stepping into a court of law. In fact, this how it works with the vast majority of human interaction. In other words, <nothing> to do with legal codes or courts of law>

Intuition/insights are sure bigger than logical/analytical conclusion (though in order to rely on our ntuition we have to have very high level of purity of heart - freedom from anger, pride , greed , fear , lust for fame/power and so on . Otherwise , we may mistake internal noise of our emotions as intuition. So , yes , only thing relevant in life is to keep progressing every moment to reach level of Jesus/Krishna er al : delta brain wave activity level)

It turns out that CG's software doesn't like the word 'or' between (double) quotation marks. (But single quotes are OK, as you can see.)

Don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. Insert the word 'or' inside " " and see what happens when you try to post it.

No, I just tried it again and the same thing happened. I can't even post *this* message, in which I've copied and pasted yours, unless I change the double quotes to single.

When I just try to preview it I see

403 Forbidden

&quot;or&quot; = "or"

* * * * *

<I cheated. You indeed found an interesting quirk in the system>

The same thing happens with all the bitwise operators ... sometimes.

If I try to type "xor" "and" "not" with ordinary double quotes, I get a 403 flag.

But if I insert an extra " on the same line, I can type "or", "xor", "and", "not", etc., and there's no flag.

I just got the 403 forbidden. While I was trying to post a joke about it!!

However , i am not sure if this conversation is relevant here >

We are blessed, truly>

Yes , <big pawn> posted today as <ohioliberalfan> at rogoffland as you and <willber g> both observed.

This is how it is going to play out in all likelihood -