Where do you get it from? If I implied anything (except the obvious, that a lot of GMs have trained Negi for shorter or longer periods of time), it would be that if he doesn't make it to the top, then it's not because they didn't spend enough resources on qualified trainers for him. Which really isn't a very biased observation.

<unconsciously you let your bias against the kid show flagrantly>

If "my bias against the kid" was 1/10th of your bias against me, I'd be writing some really terrible stuff about him...

What's this thing about making "arguments" based on what's going on in my unconsciousness? You seem to be sickeningly preoccupied with analysing "the person behind TheGladiator", judging from all your personal comments about _me_. You seldom comment what I write directly, you just use my posts as input to your comments about the person you think (=wrongly guess) is me.). While I personally find myself kind of an interesting topic, ;) I'm growing pretty tired of your constant attempts at turning the discussion to ("the person") me.

Even though 95% of what I write on chessgames.com is on the pages of Magnus and Negi, I do follow quite many other discussions here. I've noticed that the way you're behaving against me isn't unique - you obviously feel that it's your mission and in your power to tell other kibitzers what to think and how to behave, and if they don't apply, you start your game of personal "evaluations".

I don't get why you think it's cool to portray yourself as a bitter and self-important geezer; if that's what you actually are, then perhaps you would be better off by shutting your mouth. On the other hand, if you don't think you fit these characteristics, you'd better start asking yourself why s4life on chessgames.com looks like one.

Smalltalk aside - if you don't get a grip of yourself very soon, I might start haunting you all over chessgames.com, writing detailed "analysis" of your behaviour while constructing (inventing?) a psychological profile of you - in the spirit of how you're stalking me. While I generally find such behaviour repulsive, I might enjoy doing that to you. So don't tempt me any further.

And on a closing note: Please don't go crazy about "me attacking you personally" in this post - you get the kind of answer you ask for. It's darn easy to show anyone that 95% of the time, it's you who start our fruitless exchanges of words, preferably by criticising me or something you (mistakenly) think I've said or meant. Generally I don't care what you write, as long as you're not addressing me.

It's really not very surprising that someone with your kind of psychological problems responds like that. It must be very unpleasant and unpractical suffering from schizofrenia _and_ living in denial when you're involved in discussions on the net. Keeping track of what your multiple personalities have written must be a nightmare.

<just because I like to tease the mentally challenged>

Don't be too hard on yourself (yourselves?), leave that to me. [Listen, the guy in the mirror is _you_, you're talking to yourself - but probably one of your other selfs.]

PS! Remember to tell all your multiply troubled personalities that they are not supposed to respond to this - [<I will stop here [...] you can write all you want>] - 'cause you (or some of you) don't at all care about having the last say in anything...

Like what, eh? There are many suggestions one could make. Perhaps Nigel Short's recent comment (on blitz, not Negi) will help: <rapid hand movements are best left to teenage boys>

<<3. Were the accusations that Kramnik was cheating justified? Was there probable cause to suspect him of cheating?>

Yes and no. There was some circumstancial evidence, enough to warrant a complaint.>

I'm just curious as why you (seemingly) consider such a(n) (official and widely published) complaint LESS potential harmful (and less impropriate) than my initial posts about Satka on a web forum that few (in comparison: nobody) read and nobody cares about.

Here's what you wrote, before your bias against me reached gigantic proportions:

<s4life Jul-02-06: "as I said, all the evidence that you have provided so far is circumstancial..." "I think you [...] should refrain from making accusations and conspiracy theories that are damaging of someone else's reputation, unless there is factual evidence.">

[Feel free to ignore the later evidence of factual nature, e.g. the PGN file.]

1) What principle were/are you following?

2) Do you rule out the possibility that your very different stand on the two issues are more based on different biases than different circumstances?

Cheers,

<stubborn and psychotic individual>

I didn't ask about the differences between the two situations, I asked two OTHER explicit questions and one implicit. I'll rephrase the implicit one, so you can spend your time and come up with good answers to all three of them at your convenience:

<Your answer is there.>

You aren't this dumb. Your "answer" has absolutely no relevance to question 3, and it does not at all answer question 2. Regarding the latter, you've only pointed out a difference between the circumstances - namely who that were critical - and I honestly would assume that the view of the likes of Topalov & co has more impact on someone's future chess career than anything I might say.

Fresh air is healthy, but it sure takes more than air to bring you back to sanity.

Regarding question 1) - well, your principle then would go something like this: "When someone nobody knows, that is not part of event X, asks critical questions about said event, the potential for damage to the involved parties is at its greatest, and I will therefore take a clear stand against it. The more remote the critic, the more serious the possible consequences. The less important the critic, the stronger my condemnation."