The answer is one.

Alhouth I have seen Matt Cutts (Google) state they follow more then one, each hop including the first leaks juice, he also stated they do not keep following but did not give a number

Bing states one.

http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-redirection-response-results-in-another-redirection

http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-unnecessary-redirects

First I mast sure you understand, that no-follow still leaks link juice, it just does not pass it to the linked page.
there was a time where you could stop leaking link juice by using no-follow, but not any more.
So using no-follow’s is generally not a good idea. If you do you are wasting link juice. Even if you don’t want a page to rank, you are better off letting the juice flow and have a link on the linked to page pointing back to your home page or any other page you want to rank.
As for no-follow and the fact that Google still follows. They don’t follow though that link, but they may get to the page from another link, or they may already have the url in their index.
You can put a no-follow meta tag in a page or a no-index. A no-follow meta tag, will allow Search Engines to crawl the page, but will not give link juice to any pages you have linked from that page, but as I stated, you will not keep the link juice, it will just evaporate. A no index will stop SE’s from indexing that page

I believe they report when you have malwae or been hacked, but not when uyou have been flaged

I just checked and you are in both bing and google

I agree, if the old pages are worth it. If not just 404 them.

A or C, but not B

You shouyld not daisy chane 301's. I think going will find it but leaks juice each hop, bing says only 1 hop

http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-unnecessary-redirects

If you new site has litle relevance to the old pages, you might choose C, i dont know what the pages are worth, so you need to make the chose of juice V's maintainence

I just had a read, about the noarchive, I found where http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/017128.html

Where it is claimed that Matt Cutts has said there is no penalty, BUT, if you have spammy signals it will be another signal.

so there is some truth in it, but only if you ae already a bit spammy.

I also found this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhrZKejdmEE

Matt mentioned it here. if you have been hacked, they may show he hacked page only to googlebot, so this can not be checked they also add noarchive.
so if they suspect a hack, and you have noarchive, you may have a problem, but he also stated in anouther videio that they will tell you you hhave a problem.

Yes I am. I think you are talking of

where the syntax steve posted is for caching in the browser and proxy servers.

Why would you take it as less trustworthy.

simply having dynamic content is reason enouth to have no cache. no-caching is widly used, you can no cache all or part of a page if anything i would say the oppersite, if you are cached you may get indexed less often.

for example you should not cache a page with sensitive data, and allow someone to click the back button at a later time and get the data.

Search results is anouther example, I am sure that google and Bing do not cache their search results.

News papers is another.

no it would not have any affect, no-cache is a requirement for many sites that have dynamic content. Why would SE's want to penalize you for having dynamic content.

Caching does give you faster loading times, but as someone posted from google, you have to be very slow to get flaged for slow load times and less then 1% of pages do, even then it is a small signal.

You can use a canonical tag on page A, to point to A, telling that this is the original, teh reason for this is when people scrape your site they will point back home.

i belive thats is what they were getting at

you would only point it at B if B was a duplicate.

I have never used either, but from a developer point of view Telerik (makers of Sitefinity) are excellent, telerik are from Bulgaria (Bulgarians are big on programming). I cant speak highly enough of them. I have done plenty of work on Telerik MVC Controls and have been very impressed,

Sitefinityis ASP.NET, where Word press is PHP, I do know that they are looking to move sitinfinity to ASP.NET MVC, MVC is superior to ASP.NET Webforms, and far superior to php. MVC is also very SEO friendly, it has a clean separation of concerns giving very clean html, no post backs or viewstate, Already they are using the MVC Routing engine that gives full control over urls, no messy file names or parameters, you can make your URL say whatever you want, it does not have to match your folders.

If you intend to further develop your site in the future, I would go with Telerik

go for it, I agree with Stores, it will help rather then hinder.

I set up a test to see just how well bold helped keywords, the test were inconculsive, I suggest it has only mild benefit. i believe SEOMoz has shown the same.

What you suggest is quite natural, iwould tr5y to get the guts of the subject into that paragraph

not sure what you mean here, I have a canonical on every page, I program my sites to dynamicly to do, the reason i do so, is if someone scraps a page, it will have my address in the canonical tag.

I dont know what you mean by not relative to the tag. it just a href, are we talking about the same thing?

rel="canonical" href=http://mydomain.com/>