I’m thinking of forming a new clique

@the-gravedigger said
He certainly had his ups and downs 🙄

Though he's exhibited a few level hangups and his doors of perception are frequently locked.

-Removed-

You probably hold the site record for the poster who has requested the most apologies.

-Removed-

You often present yourself as a victim who deserves an apology when in reality you have offended others far more than you've been offended yourself.

-Removed-

Unjustly?

Hahahahaha...

@suzianne said
Unjustly?

Hahahahaha...

Dive is such a victim. Perhaps we should have a whip-round and buy him a blanket.

@fmf said
What do you think of all the 'verbal' violence Duchess64 has been aiming at drewnogal?

FMF replied to Suzianne.

After Kevin Eleven wrote a post (now deleted by RHP) about Divegeester 'wiggling a tampon' inside me,
Drewnogal claimed (or pretended) that she would NOT have been offended IF it had been written about her.

But her lying troll ally FMF has been loudly implying that Drewnogal's rightly very
offended because I dared to describe her as white (Drewnogal wrote that she's ethnically Polish)
or elderly (Drewnogal wrote that her parents were oppressed in 1940--81 years ago).

So note the absurd inconsistency about Drewnogal--who likes to play the victim--being offended.

1) Drewnogal would NOT be offended (so she said or implied) by a man writing about
'wiggling a tampon' inside her.

2) But Drewnogal is EXTREMELY offended (she said so) by being described as elderly.
And her troll ally FMF implied that Drewnogal's offended by being described as white.

Given all that, I would say that Drewnogal has an extremely odd 'sensitivity' about being offended.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You often present yourself as a victim who deserves an apology when in reality you have offended others far more than you've been offended yourself.

Could you not just as easily ~ and more plausibly ~ be saying this to Duchess64?

-Removed-

If you're going to make a point, at least make a valid one.

I've clearly stated that if the poster concerned did indeed use a pornographic avatar as described then they were rightly banned by the Mods. My issue was your public accusations to another new member when these accusations should have been taken to the Mods to investigate. The fact that they turned out to be the original offender doesn't validate your actions, because if you had been wrong (entirely possible) a new member who hadn't posted anything offensive would have been publically challenged for no reason.

This is the same principle as not publically accusing somebody of using a chess engine. (Which most reasonable people agree with). Suspicions should always be reported to the Mods who are better positioned to investigate.

This really isn't rocket science.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
If you're going to make a point, at least make a valid one.

I've clearly stated that if the poster concerned did indeed use a pornographic avatar as described then they were rightly banned by the Mods. My issue was your public accusations to another new member when these accusations should have been taken to the Mods to investigate. The fact that they turned out t ...[text shortened]... reported to the Mods who are better positioned to investigate.

This really isn't rocket science.

Ghost of Duke replied to Divegeester

In fact, Divegeester recently publicly accused me of cheating at chess, claiming that
it's obvious that's the only way that I could have achieved my rating (2097) at RHP.
Of course, Divegeester offered no evidence to support his false accusation.

Divegeester (rated 1033) also recently boasted that he obviously is superior to me at chess and everything else.

@duchess64 said
Divegeester (rated 1033) also recently boasted that he obviously is superior to me at chess and everything else.

If that comment about chess WAS NOT a tongue in cheek post by divegeester, then he is deluded.