24 Jul 21
@suzianne saidI won't miss her and think she should have been banned years ago. Pop psychology aside, she was utterly intolerant of any opinion that even slightly disagreed with her own and turned virtually every thread she was involved in into a nasty exchange (usually one-sided) of personal attacks and insults. She was a severe detriment to reasoned debate in a Debates Forum and was unapologetic in her scorn for the Forum in general.
This is closer to the truth than most of the knee-jerk judgements people have made about her here. She had a difficult childhood and this perhaps stunted her ability to interact socially. But she wasn't a horrible person. She was just frustrated by having to interact in this forum with a culture she was less familiar with. She had an attenuated ability to sense when peop ...[text shortened]... these forums. She added a much-needed spice to counteract the boring sameness of most threads here.
She had ample opportunity to conform her behavior here to the required standards of the posting guidelines, but refused to do so. She could have been a valuable contributor to the site, but for whatever reason was one of the biggest roadblocks to discussion here. How many threads were poisoned by her vitriol? Hundreds, maybe thousands.
Good riddance.
@Metal-Brain
Yeah, you get my Irish up when you clearly don't want a democracy in the US.
You would be very happy to have your god king be a real king and FUK the constitution, needs upgrading anyway, right? So next time repubs own all three branches plus SCOTUS, they can put in the constitution all the draconian voter suppression laws, have them in the constitution itself so no dem can win anything ever again, and goodbye democracy in the US.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147487
@no1marauder said“ she was utterly intolerant of any opinion that even slightly disagreed with her own and turned virtually every thread she was involved in into a nasty exchange ”
I won't miss her and think she should have been banned years ago. Pop psychology aside, she was utterly intolerant of any opinion that even slightly disagreed with her own and turned virtually every thread she was involved in into a nasty exchange (usually one-sided) of personal attacks and insults. She was a severe detriment to reasoned debate in a Debates Forum and was ...[text shortened]... on here. How many threads were poisoned by her vitriol? Hundreds, maybe thousands.
Good riddance.
pot meet kettle
@mott-the-hoople saidAt least he sticks to the topic and does not revert to calling people racist. All discussions would get side tracked with her personal attacks.
“ she was utterly intolerant of any opinion that even slightly disagreed with her own and turned virtually every thread she was involved in into a nasty exchange ”
pot meet kettle
TOS says this kind of stuff is a no no.
She was by far the biggest offender and the only reason why she lasted this long is because she is a liberal.
@eladar saidI never thought she 'discussed' anything. All apostrophes, quote marks, and those millions of links, reams of them. I , nor anyone here, ever read them, this is not research for a theme paper!
At least he sticks to the topic and does not revert to calling people racist. All discussions would get side tracked with her personal attacks.
TOS says this kind of stuff is a no no.
She was by far the biggest offender and the only reason why she lasted this long is because she is a liberal.
The only reason I am here is to toy with the way that liberals think, their dependence on one another, their conflicting opinions (thus my bed-wetting sarcasm) and ever-present anger. Don't care about links. The only thing I gleaned from Duchess was her obsession with racism. But could not figure where it came from, and she sure didn't tell us.
@averagejoe1 saidYour racism is in your pores.
The only reason I am here is to toy with the way that liberals think, their dependence on one another, their conflicting opinions thus my bed-wetting and ever-present anger. Don't care about links. The only thing I gleaned from Duchess was her obsession with racism. But could not figure where it came from, and she sure didn't tell us.
25 Jul 21
@no1marauder saidI can see this point of view.
I won't miss her and think she should have been banned years ago. Pop psychology aside, she was utterly intolerant of any opinion that even slightly disagreed with her own and turned virtually every thread she was involved in into a nasty exchange (usually one-sided) of personal attacks and insults. She was a severe detriment to reasoned debate in a Debates Forum and was ...[text shortened]... on here. How many threads were poisoned by her vitriol? Hundreds, maybe thousands.
Good riddance.
But I will ask you: what is more disturbing: Duchess and her iconic way of arguing or 10 current threads spreading misinformation about corona and vaccines?
The alt-right Americans on this forum are at least as detremental to debate as Duchess was. Constantly spreading lies, misinformation, racism and nearly every thread is about 2 subjects or brought back to 2 subjects.
Any rational person ends up insulting them. Which doesn’t make matters better, I will give you that.
And we’re talking about 6 posters. At least 1 of which has returned time and time again under a new identity.
As you know, I’m not in favour of banning people or censoring debate. But I can’t for the life of me see the rationality of banning Duchess (whose basic arguments were founded in rationality; albeit flavoured with narcissistic arrogance), but allowing the constant extreme right paranoia to continue.
25 Jul 21
@shavixmir saidI see a difference in banning someone for their opinions and banning someone based on their disruptive conduct.
I can see this point of view.
But I will ask you: what is more disturbing: Duchess and her iconic way of arguing or 10 current threads spreading misinformation about corona and vaccines?
The alt-right Americans on this forum are at least as detremental to debate as Duchess was. Constantly spreading lies, misinformation, racism and nearly every thread is about 2 subjec ...[text shortened]... lavoured with narcissistic arrogance), but allowing the constant extreme right paranoia to continue.
Perhaps that's not the clearest line, but surely Duchy's behavior on this Forum and site wasn't exactly on the borderline of expected conduct on an internet chess site's forums. Virtually any other one would have given her the heave ho long ago.
25 Jul 21
@no1marauder saidNot sure.
I see a difference in banning someone for their opinions and banning someone based on their disruptive conduct.
Perhaps that's not the clearest line, but surely Duchy's behavior on this Forum and site wasn't exactly on the borderline of expected conduct on an internet chess site's forums. Virtually any other one would have given her the heave ho long ago.
What you’re saying is that style over substance is what gets one banned.
I do agree that her style was completely absurd:
“Note that the disengenious Nr.1 is unappolegetic in his racist and ignorant views… etc.”
And I agree it could curl one’s toes and make one’s eyes roll. And that it was a style I’ve never encountered before.
But I, for one, shall miss it. A little.
I still think that the right-wing content is worse.
25 Jul 21
@shavixmir saidMany of the right wingers on this forum are as trollish as Duchess64 yet they have not been banned. The conservatives on the site tend to be rude without any actual substance. At least Duchess64 generally gave intelligent commentary.
Not sure.
What you’re saying is that style over substance is what gets one banned.
I do agree that her style was completely absurd:
“Note that the disengenious Nr.1 is unappolegetic in his racist and ignorant views… etc.”
And I agree it could curl one’s toes and make one’s eyes roll. And that it was a style I’ve never encountered before.
But I, for one, shall miss it. A little.
I still think that the right-wing content is worse.
25 Jul 21
@no1marauder said"she was utterly intolerant of any opinion that even slightly disagreed with her own and turned virtually every thread she was involved in into a nasty exchange (usually one-sided) of personal attacks and insults."
I won't miss her and think she should have been banned years ago. Pop psychology aside, she was utterly intolerant of any opinion that even slightly disagreed with her own and turned virtually every thread she was involved in into a nasty exchange (usually one-sided) of personal attacks and insults. She was a severe detriment to reasoned debate in a Debates Forum and was ...[text shortened]... on here. How many threads were poisoned by her vitriol? Hundreds, maybe thousands.
Good riddance.
That describes you perfectly.
"She had ample opportunity to conform her behavior here to the required standards of the posting guidelines, but refused to do so."
I didn't violate any posting guidelines when I was banned. Where does it say people can be banned for posting vaccine opinions? sonhouse and shav both habitually post profanity, insults and harassing posts and they have not been banned. Is that merely because I don't complain about it?
How many threads were poisoned by your vitriol? You often resort to ad hominem attacks. Do you only see it when others do it? You are projecting again. Does that help you fool yourself into thinking you are not like Duchess?