And boo for <Missy>'s provocative lamentations.

I'm surprised that <bippy> is also canvassing Susan so heavily.

Has he no pride, prostrating himself before such a powerful women, begging forgiveness and apologies?!

After all, his intentions were to go off and found a truly better platform for his brand of "Free Speech".

Kinda like Trump's truth platform - more floundering than foundering.

If he feels himself unjustly accused, he can publicly defend himself in due course. Until then, the point is moot.

< Can we get an ETA on his return? I'm planning to quit the moment he returns.>

Do you actually want to debate this one?

I'd be willing.

(Though perhaps <Rogoff> would be the better forum - but remember, it was our vaunted administrator/historian <Missy> who started this topic, and on the official <chessgames> forum.)

<Missy> is somehow arguing somehow that the length of <bippy>'s tenure at <CG> is relevant. But has s/he examined his behavior over the entire tenure?

I have.

For a long time he hardly posted on <CG> at all.

So let's try to keep some perspective on the length of membership vs. the intensity and corrosiveness of his non-chess posting once he switched into full-time religious/political combat/disrespect mode.

Do you actually want to debate this one?>

I'd rather <Stonehenge> answer it.

< But has s/he examined his behavior over the entire tenure?

I have.>

There you go, tracking people again.

<So let's try to keep some perspective on the length of membership vs. the intensity and corrosiveness of his non-chess posting once he switched into full-time religious/political combat/disrespect mode.>

Yes, it's the internet. Your history is out there.

I've invited the same level of scrutiny, here and elsewhere.

* * * * *

<Fair point - when do you say that this militancy occurred?>

OK, this is a bit ironic. First I'm (unfairly) criticized for something I'm now being asked the details about?

<<Missy> If he [i.e. <bippy> feels himself unjustly accused, he can publicly defend himself in due course. Until then, the point is moot.>

This is a moot point since <bippy> has posted on <CG> several times since the "alleged" hacking. Not once was there a denial of any kind - he spent his posting capitol entirely on whacked-fake-lib-lib-whacking sock.

So, this argument of <Missy>'s is a strawman - wanting to reinstate someone in the interest of allowing themselves to clear their name - when in reality, this person has zero interest in defending himself against any hacking accusation.

(Likely because such a defense would be moot)

<Susan>

I don't wish to be an editor anymore nor do I wish to have a Premium Membership anymore. Please, let Steve or Pete make the necessary changes.

I'm not sure if he has denied the alleged hacking; I was just responding to <Miss Susan>'s report which, at least to my ears, suggested such.

<wanting to reinstate someone in the interest of allowing themselves to clear their name>

That's not why I want him reinstated. I think he's a positive contributor to the site and has served his time. But if he wishes to publicly rebut the allegations against him, he should be allowed so to do.

Stirring the pot again?!?

Stirring the pot again?>

A pop quiz! Although I graduated many years ago... once more into the breach!

<Ah, but who's tracking...>

I have.>

Cyber stalking is nothing to brag about.

<So let's try to keep some perspective on... the intensity and corrosiveness of his non-chess posting...>

Has he no pride...?>

For his sake, let us hope so. After all, pride is known as the queen of vices.

<After all, his intentions were to go off and found a truly better platform for his <<<brand>>> of "Free Speech".>

The period <Stonehenge> has been a member has nothing to do with the <wallace/BP> issue.>

Of course they are related, as <Stonehenge> himself hinted/indicated: <I'm planning to quit the moment he returns..>