My apologies...
Sorry, I wanted to enjoy a sunset and delicious meal with my wife and children on Mother's Day. I did.
I also apologize for not returning to this "discussion" sooner, but on Monday my network got infected with a virus. One of my clients called about noon to "warn" me. The little bugger got past Norton and mucked up my system royally. Unfortunately it took me the rest of the week to get things fixed and "catch up" enough to be able to respond to your latest pearl of wisdom.
Quick recap.
Our primary point of contention is that I claim you give the appearance of supporting (encouraging, assisting, etc.) shorting consortiums. I offer (and you have admitted) that there have been numerous occasions where you (as admin) have terminated the accounts of persons engaged in "flame wars" with "bashers" yet rarely have you terminated the "bashers". Your stated reasoning is that the "touts" broke the rules while the "bashers" did not. As a result of this "reasoning" the question arises...
Why would an admin (statistically speaking) remove a disproportionate number of accounts from one demographic group over another?
Even when reviewed on a percentage basis, you've terminated far more "touts" than "bashers".
One theory that has been put forth is that you support these "bashers" because they instigate arguments and controversy, which translate into hits, which translates into profit (you hope).
This theory has a great deal of merit and there is enough evidence to support it, and it does answer, in part, the question of "why". While this activity isn't "illegal", it still doesn't sound very noble...or honorable...or ethical...or moral.
Another theory is that you are in league with the shorting consortiums (some even say you run one of them).
Without an actual review of your trading logs this theory has little factual evidence to support it. But it still warrants exploration. Your support of "bashers" is so one sided, that it almost defies description. Your long term association with a significant number of both heavy duty and small time shorters is also easily proven. some even refer to you as "friends". I believe you keep calling them "acquaintances".
But, There is a way this can all be laid to rest one way or the other.
When I accused you of trading with a shorting consortium your first reaction was to curse me and terminate my account. Not exactly a denial of the charge. You then "explained" that you had been "accused" of this before...and your employer investigated but took no action. stronger but still a non-denial denial (remember Nixon's "I am not a crook").
And Lastly...you respond to my accusation by calling it "libelous".
Well, Sue me.
Be aware that as part of the discovery process your trading logs will be subject to review, and should they contain any instance that supports the claim that you have profited from trading with a shorting consortium...then your legal troubles will be far more severe than any threat you can bring to bear on me. Of course, if there is no such activity in your trading log why not just come right out and say so directly, without equivocation? Say it with the conviction of an honorable man swearing an honorable oath. Also if you haven't done it before, it should be no problem to hold forth that you will never, ever do so.
Should you choose not to sue, everyone will have to wonder... was BoP right about Bob? Especially if you can't (or won't) make such a definitive statement as described. You've been asked to do so three times now. Another NDD would be pretty damaging in the eyes of the public
The only question remaining is, Do I get a summons? or will you definitively pontificate that you've never, ever profited from trading with a shorting consortium and that you never will?
Either way will end this. Your call.
Have a great day.
The Bird of Prey
PS Enjoy the next few days, more emergency work for my clients so I'll be to busy to respond.
PPS There is a third option, (respond with a NDD) but that would indicate you wish to continue the argument.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
