World Cup prayers

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Wow, now I'm Hitler.

I'll say this, I didn't expect that.

Apparently, desperate times call for desperate measures.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

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 insult' but when challenged on her motivation for posting it here, sets about the embarrassing journey of proving 'twat' isn't a puerile insult after all.

O dear.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
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.

Not unusual.

The idealized self-image must always be 'right'.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Not unusual.

The idealized self-image must always be 'right'.

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 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.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
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.

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 @suzianne
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.

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 @ghost-of-a-duke
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.

If the content was abusive or threatening, I don't see how there would be any obligation to keep it secret.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Okay, 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:


'In this and other threads, other posters have said unpleasant things to you, sometimes justified, sometimes not. I have shown restraint; but now I'm going to call a spade a spade. Despite your intelligence, learning, and erudition, underneath your blustery facade and miles of whingeing, this is what you are: small. I can think of no worse thing to say about you.' - (Moonbus).

Originally posted by @fmf
If the content was abusive or threatening, I don't see how there would be any obligation to keep it secret.

It wasn't. The content was apparently complimentary. (But still used by Duchess to publicly lambaste the sender).

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
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.

I didn't know that. I cannot see that in the TOS. I might be wrong.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
I didn't know that. I cannot see that in the TOS. I might be wrong.

It was, in the very least, a betrayal of Tom Wolsey's reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

She weaponized his PMs in a callous attempt to humiliate him.
Bad show.

Originally posted by @fmf
If the content was abusive or threatening, I don't see how there would be any obligation to keep it secret.

Does this also apply to PMs that you claim are not a threat to you?

If you're not threatened, where's the threat?

Kind of invalidates the whole 'threat' label, eh?