You're not even talking about chess weaknesses, you're discussing character flaws.

Well... Some mistakes happen but you have to admit you have a problem here. The burden is always on the communicator. I can't possibly read all your posts - they are too long and they go on and on and on about chess and your Garry and I am honestly not interested in chess (or Garry).

I think you can make a dramatic improvement by:
- Stating your thesis and your player allegiance up front
- Using bullet points rather than these long paragraphs
- Using data, graphs or insults to color your points for the reader and "draw them in"

Otherwise you risk being misunderstood again. Let's face it - your readers are not exactly the cream of the crop either.

I am glad we came to an agreement and were able to clear the air between us. I always thought you were a nice guy! Cheers

The debate seems to be acquiring a very excusatory tone. I de-regret it.

There's no need to read all the posts, only the ones that you respond to! If you found the posts too dull to read, you could just say so. Don't pretend to have read them, take a guess about what they said, and then respond to the guess. I was writing to proloy who's usually able to digest complicated posts. If you want to jump in, you can just say "there's too much to go through here, can someone give me a quick recap?"

Speaking of that, the quick recap, as I understand it, is as follows:

PircAlert believes that Anand should go down in history as the greatest of the 15 champions, and thinks that history would agree with this judgment if they were aware of certain facts he hasn't told us.

Proloy thinks Kasparov is not anti-Anand, just brutally frank about some of his shortcomings.

I think that Kasparov is a wild card, sometimes honest and objective, other times pathetically self-serving, and that his comments about Anand are a mixture of these two.

He has read everything. He's merely making fun. It's deliberate quirk.

Palaveev enjoys getting under our skin, when he can...!

Besides, the fact that Topalov is getting thrashed, even by his seconds, is not helping either...!

Oh well, when one is just trolling, it's better not to read everything. Better to just go with the whole stream-of-consciousness flow.

Well, no matter what, Palaveev has for long been my favorite poster on this board! Nobody insults better than him...! In general, there are many here who do quite well, but Palaveev raises it to a higher level with his imagination...!

He's not a troll.

What you're describing (saying things you don't mean, trying to get under people's skin, et cetera) is my definition of trolling. (I never said that trolling couldn't sometimes be entertaining, too. What's your definition?

My yardstick of trolling would be to raise deliberate provocations, which one oneself doesn't believe in, and running away after raising a fire. A troll is generally not a participant, either active or passive. Merely an inflamer. Those who'd stick around would generally not be trolls.

Banter has its place. And personalities would differ. It all adds color.