27 Jun '18 22:50>1 edit
This post is unavailable.
Please refer to our posting guidelines.
The post that was quoted here has been removedAgain, Duchess avoids answering the simple question put to her (perhaps as it exposes her own wrongdoing). Here it is again:
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeNot unusual.
Again, Duchess avoids answering the simple question put to her (perhaps as it exposes her own wrongdoing). Here it is again:
'What was the point in quoting the random insult made by RedBadger 3 years ago, especially if you are no admirer of his puerile insults?!'
Please note readers how initially she views his 'Twat' remark as a 'puerile in ...[text shortened]... ts about the embarrassing journey of proving 'twat' isn't a puerile insult after all.
O dear.
Originally posted by @suzianneIt's actually a little tragic when you stop and think about it. She actively trolled through posting history and located an insult another poster had made 3 years ago. "Eureka!" she cried "I'll use that." - Pointlessly she then posted it into a current thread with no explanation as to why she had done so. None whatsoever. Does Duchess not think I could do likewise, that I am not spoilt for choice when it comes to other posters throwing insults in her direction and posters with far more credibility than Red Badger who was known for his repugnant posting across the forums.
Not unusual.
The idealized self-image must always be 'right'.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAnd now she's gone back through my posting history and brought up things I've posted thinking to intimidate me into ceasing this alleged 'blood feud'.
It's actually a little tragic when you stop and think about it. She actively trolled through posting history and located an insult another poster had made 3 years ago. "Eureka!" she cried "I'll use that." - Pointlessly she then posted it into a current thread with no explanation as to why she had done so. None whatsoever. Does Duchess not think I co ...[text shortened]... far more credibility than Red Badger who was known for his repugnant posting across the forums.
Originally posted by @suzianneShe also recently disclosed the content of a private PM another member had sent her, which in itself is a violation of the Terms of Service.
And now she's gone back through my posting history and brought up things I've posted thinking to intimidate me into ceasing this alleged 'blood feud'.
She's skirting the possibility of being banned, all because her neurotic self can't stand being disagreed with. Others just take this and drive on, but I'm done taking it.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeIf the content was abusive or threatening, I don't see how there would be any obligation to keep it secret.
She also recently disclosed the content of a private PM another member had sent her, which in itself is a violation of the Terms of Service.
The post that was quoted here has been removedOkay, fair enough. If we're just posting random insults made by other posters with absolutely no relevance to the current OP have one of your own:
Originally posted by @fmfIt wasn't. The content was apparently complimentary. (But still used by Duchess to publicly lambaste the sender).
If the content was abusive or threatening, I don't see how there would be any obligation to keep it secret.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI didn't know that. I cannot see that in the TOS. I might be wrong.
She also recently disclosed the content of a private PM another member had sent her, which in itself is a violation of the Terms of Service.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59It was, in the very least, a betrayal of Tom Wolsey's reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
I didn't know that. I cannot see that in the TOS. I might be wrong.
Originally posted by @fmfDoes this also apply to PMs that you claim are not a threat to you?
If the content was abusive or threatening, I don't see how there would be any obligation to keep it secret.