Hey Greenlaser, likesforests's remark was clearly not about Kramnik personally - what do you expect - give a thousand page list starting with Firdawsi (c. 1000 AD) - [firdawsi because of probably the earliest actual chess extant - viz. his K+R+R v K+R+R study] and naming all great players of history, ending with -- "they all probably made mistakes." ?
3 days ago, going over my games here , I found that in my 4th game here my 1400- opponent hung a piece on move 7 or so and I didn't notice it!
Re accusation: part of the solution is - disable chat soon as opp says something upsetting during a game. (You may add a repartee before doing that, according to your taste.) 
NGS COME FIRST
likesforests wrote, "Kramnik misses things." Now Kramnik may feel insulted both for the recognition that he misses things and for no mention of Anand missing things. Anand may be trying to figure out whether or not he was insulted by not being used as an example, if it meant even the best miss things. Of course, it is true. Great, even all time great players, have made great, simple mistakes, including resigning when they can win on the spot. Playing chess with an opponent, rather than just analyzing, is in itself dealing with a critic. The opponent's play is a critique of yours. Accusations of cheating, without any basis, are rude. It happened to me a number of times in person, I think because my play, by winning, was too critical of my opponents. In one case, I won while an exchange down. In another case I crushed a 2200 player in blitz giving him time odds. Another player had given me rooks odds in 5 minute chess successfully when I was learning. He was a famous New York City hustler who beat experts giving rook odds (with his pawn on a3). When I later beat him giving him 5 minutes to 3, he couldn't accept it. His reaction permitted him to stop playing instead of getting "hot" and continuing to lose. The reaction of accusing the winner is both an assault and a defense mechanism.