Chess Arguments Are Lame: Dunderheads?

I was just reading about GrandMaster Nigel Short receiving a warning for calling the FIDE Vice President (and Deputy president) dunderheads in an interview concerning cheating allegations raised against fellow GM Veselin Topalov. The Ethics Commission (is Chess that hardcore that we even have an ethics commission?), protractors and pocket protectors in hand, stated Nigel “exceeded in the expression of his opinions, abusing of the right to criticism and committed a conduct likely to injure or discredit Mr. Zurab Azmaiparashvili’s reputation, thus violating art. 2.2.11 of the FIDE Code of Ethics”. Huh? It’s not like he said they were closet crackheads, he called them dunderheads. He has to clear his reputation after that? Is he worried about applying for a job and having the dunderhead comment come up…sorry, sir, but we don’t take kindly to dunderheads around here. I love the game of Chess, but why are all of our top players and officials so, well, geeky? I know it’s Chess but c’mon! Every time any two Chess players argue online it’s like they’re trying to write it in Shakespearean prose. They use way to many words that I have to grab my dictionary to understand, and they just end up nit-picking each other back and forth. Just state your opinion and don’t make me get out my decoder ring to understand it. Not that I have one of those but :)