Confusing? Not really. Read on. But first allow me to address Jimmy's opening paragraph. Maybe that's how you think Jimmy and you judge others from your own yardstick.
It's always about issues. We are for clean competition and they are against. We are for selection and they are for priviledged position based on manufactured numbers. We are for looking at new ideas and they are about juniors, wait your turn. We are about producing our own Champions and they are about tearing down. You get the drift.
And so we have discourse. That is in fact how we have progress. From difference of opinions. And so each party present their arguments. In a healthy environment, it's about which way we can improve better, faster. In a mature environment the discourse is usually civil. And we use reasoning. Sometimes the arguments can be "hot" if the parties are really passionate about their stance. But it is still not personal.
But now you see me use names like Jimmy and Peter. Has it become personal? Lets look at this closer. What happens when one party uses lies and fabrications. When they use intimidation and threats. When they slander etc. etc. When they have hidden agendas?
Look carefully. I have named the parties and I have asked for the proper Authorities to act. So it's still not personal. I have not tried to take the law into my own hands. All I have done is to show you their lies and fabrications using their own action and their own postings and comments.
Note: Isn't that how chess is played? You think you have the winning argument? Prove it on the table. When you use sabotage, banning without grounds, what are you really saying? When you attack the juniors are you displaying confidence, courage? If not, then what is it?
Question. Have you seen one idea, one suggestion from them about the way forward? Or has it only been about their ego, their fears?