<Susan Freeman: Yep. Annie has decided to leave. Several days ago, she left abruptly.>

<CG's> Social Justice Warrior, Pink Pussyhat, ANTIFA revolutionary who focused on deleting the posts of politically incorrect users and tearing down the statues of the Elite Posters, to the detriment of getting actual work done on the site, has gone.

DING DONG!

My hunch is she had something to do with suspending me for almost two years for a post on the support forum where I said men and women are different, so I'm not crying any crocodile tears for her sudden departure. If I'm wrong about this, then I would welcome the correction and react accordingly of course.

I don't think she was American either, and non-Americans sometimes don't fully grasp what free speech is all about in America, so they are quick to censor and politically punish people, as had happened here to me and to others.

Obama, the affirmative action president, was given a Nobel Peace Prize two days into his presidency, making it the affirmative action version of the NPP. Then he went on to wreck the Middle East by sowing massive chaos and destruction without a clear plan.

Trump, on the other hand, has brought peace to the region in a truly historic proportion, and it hasn't been discussed on this page yet.

Stay tuned for my post on this coming soon. Others should discuss it too. The libs are upset beyond belief, gnashing their teeth at the peace breaking out in the Middle East because it makes Trump look brilliant and moral.

I have a scheme for making democracy compatible with capitalism!

Votes should be fungible. In other words, one should be able to sell one's vote. In a Presidential year, my vote in a potentially swing state must be worth at least $50,000. A few thousand votes can swing the result, so do the math: Parties are already spending more on advertising and other campaign activities. That money goes to parasites, but it could go to the poor who would gain far more than their vote will ever benefit them.

Even better: allow the Federal Govt and the States to sell extra votes to benefit their treasury.

Do we know for certain it was the Romanian girl who deleted our posts?

Apparently it was her who deleted Ohio's suggestion, but she might not be the only one arbitrarily erasing comments.

I don't like to jump to conclusions about these things.

Certainly if it wasn't a woman deleting posts all over the place it was a male-feminist.

Real men don't bother with minutiae such as pandering to pathetic little weasels like Nozzle. Real men concentrate on the important issues such as making sure this site is running at optimum level (which it certainly isn't).

<Several days ago, she left abruptly.>

It sounds like she left in a huff!

She threw a stuffed toy across the room then slammed down the lid on her laptop!

<My hunch is she had something to do with suspending me for almost two years>

Were you really suspended for two years?

That's an excessively long time!

Then, when I made <The Kingfish> handle, I was posting regularly until I made that comment about men and women being different, at which time I was totally suspended for about two years. After that, if I tried to make a new handle, they would suspend that account as soon as possible and they did that for a long time. It's part of the reason why nothing was getting done here, because the Pink Pussyhat Antifa people were spending all their time chasing me around, trying put a pink pussyhat on my head.

<The Kingfish: This conversation about <JBC> running Susan Polgar off the site is interesting for a few reasons. First of all, why is a <strong woman> running away like that?

I think this highlights the basic differences between men and women. First of all, chess is a man's game. Yes, there are some women who play chess and play it well. Yes, there are some women on this website that can handle being around the guys and don't run away. Take for instance <Jessica Fischer Queen>. She doesn't run away crying even though she's been thoroughly abused from time to time, especially by the likes of that big old meanie, <Big Pawn>.

But aside from these exceptions, it can fairly be stated that chess is a man's game. You go to a chess tournament and virtually everyone playing is a man. That's just how it is. So when you have a chess website, like this one, you can be sure that the vast majority of members will be men.

Men interact differently than women. Everyone knows how men are with each other and everyone knows how women are. On this website, the men will be men and act like men, whether that's good, bad or a mix of both. Whatever the case, men will be men and do what men do and act how men act and interact how men interact.

I see <JBC's> interaction with Polgar as nothing more than a good razzing. It's how men are. It's what we do. The fact that she couldn't handle it is not <CG's> fault and it's not <JBC's> fault either. It's no one's fault. Polgar couldn't handle the masculine environment and left. No big deal. It's not her fault either. She will feel more comfortable somewhere else where the women are.

You can't expect men to act like women just so as not to have offended women on the site. That's just not natural. Let the men be men and if they women don't like it, they can go to a safe space where masculinity is not allowed.

Everyone here needs to leave <jbc> alone about this and stop blaming him for <strong woman> Susan Polgar's weakness.>

I sent this to a member whom I communicate with regularly by email, which is why I still have a copy of it. It's saved in my email history.

As soon as I posted this, they gathered in the park around my statue and tore it down! They "smashed the patriarchy!"

Because I vaguely recall one of the admins denying you were banned from the site.

The Kingfish post does not contravene any of the posting guidelines, unless they classify it as "sexist"?

Certainly only a feminist would be offended by that post, since it is perfectly accurate and correct.

But I still find it hard to believe that any member would be suspended for two years just because Finan complained and you wrote an anti-feminist post?!

Because I vaguely recall one of the admins denying you were banned from the site.>

I saw that, but I couldn't post, so they were wrong about that. That's why I created new handles. I didn't do that just for the fun of it.

And regarding <Mark>, he was kicking up a big stink about it, playing the victim and manipulating the admins, crying in the support forum and trolling the whole site over me. Then I noticed my post was deleted and I was banned.

<The Kingfish post does not contravene any of the posting guidelines, unless they classify it as "sexist"?>

There's an old saying: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Likewise, if all you wear is a Pink Pussyhat, then everything looks "sexist."

heh

If Jesus was walking the earth today, they would call him a sexist, as if there really is such a thing as a sexist. lols - such a stupid concept!

<But I still find it hard to believe that any member would be suspended for two years just because Finan complained and you wrote an anti-feminist post?!>

That's the part you just have to accept because it's true. As a matter of fact, I posted and reposted (under different user handles) that <offending> post over and over again in the support forum in an effort to expose the admins as petty, vindictive, selective enforces of the rules and anal control freaks. I challenged them, as <ocf> recently did, to explain *exactly* what was wrong with that post, but every time I did that, they would first delete the post and then ban my new user handle. I did that here and there for months and it was always the same.

I did come up with some good user handles though! <In the Woodpile> was particularly hilarious!

Back then I thought it was <Sargon> who was deleting my posts and user handles and suspending my account, but he kind of said it wasn't him. Then later <Susan> appeared to be out of the loop on it. At that point, I started to realize that <annie> was an admin of some kind and it <all started to make sense>.

I could be entirely wrong about her and her suspected role in my unfair, politically motivated mistreatment on this site, but I doubt it. Still, as I said before, if the facts say otherwise, then I will gladly adjust my position and respond appropriately.

So they blatantly lied to all the members about that?!

Regarding your two year ban, did they inform you at the outset that the ban was for two years, or did they just keep the ban on you for two years before lifting it at their own discretion?

<Back then I thought it was <Sargon> who was deleting my posts and user handles and suspending my account, but he kind of said it wasn't him. Then later <Susan> appeared to be out of the loop on it. At that point, I started to realize that <annie> was an admin of some kind and it <all started to make sense>.>

I find it hard to believe that one person (other than the owner) could enforce a two year ban.

Did Susan concur with your excessive ban?

Did you get any response via email?

We just saw Susan re-post Ohio's comment which presumably resulted in the Romanian girl throwing a hissy fit and leaving abruptly.

Weren't you able to circumvent this one vindictive admin, whoever it was?

<you have to understand that in many ways, I am the <Donald J. Trump> of this website, and you know how the libs suffer TDS. I think what we had here was an acute case of <cancel culture>! They tore down my statue, as <tpstar> once said lols.>

I don't think she was American either, and non-Americans sometimes don't fully grasp what free speech is all about in America, so they are quick to censor and politically punish people, as had happened here to me and to others. >

Even many Americans are like that nowadays. That's how we got crap like "hate speech".

In any event, she is definitely intolerant of people who don't agree with her, as many people found out.

On top of that, ever since she got a greater role in running the website, there has been no end to the azz kissing of her in the member support forum.

Post after post, off and on for many months now, were being put up by various regular users telling her how much she was helping, how much they appreciated her.

Easy pickens? right?>

Since it didn't happen, Id say no,
however it's much more complex.

One huge point is both Lincoln and Douglas agreed slavery wouldn't be around long, for the practical reason it was becoming economically ineffective. >

How wrong could they be?

In 2020, it only needs to be effective enough for elected Democrats.

<The Obamas have signed a book deal worth over $65 million>

If I remember correctly this was when China was stealing our missile technology. They were probably focused on how to get ICBMs into the air.>

Fairly sure this is grammatically wrong.

Then <Everett> says it's free speech, but that is not the point of contention in the first place, so <Everett> once again enjoys a big fat strawman for himself. The point is that the <tuna> behaves unethically, because we all agree that it's unethical to talk behind people's backs.

What exactly is talking behind someone's back? It's saying bad things about them when they aren't able to hear it or see it. For instance, if you walk out of the room and someone says some gossip about you, that is behind your back, even if <Everett> would say, "he walked out of the room and put you behind his back, so it's okay."

Let us also make clear that <Everett> is a libtard who couldn't take the heat here and left to go chum it up with uber libs <perfy boy>, <tuna> and <hmm>.

Sames with the sames. Differents with the differents. We segregate ourselves automatically, naturally even.

Speaking of <Everett>, it brings a question to mind:

What's worse, arrogance or false modesty?

Fairly sure this is grammatically wrong. >

Thank you for sharing this valuable information.

It's been a few days now, maybe a week, so I'm wondering if anyone is going to come up with a list of negative issues (the downsides) to breaking up America?

Suppose two people are having a debate about whether or not it's okay to kill an unborn baby, a black man or a Jew. Take your pick as it doesn't really matter for the sake of this example.

One guy says he supports the killing of the unborn child the jew or the black man and the other guy says it's unspeakably immoral.

With me so far?

For the sake of making this easier to follow, let's just call the guy who supports killing the innocent "the liberal" and the guy who opposes it, "the Christian."

The Christians asks, "Just to be clear, what you're telling me is that you support the killing of Jews, right?"

The liberal responds, "Yes, in certain circumstances and with some limitations I suppose..."

Now the Christian says, "I disagree but I respect your opinion."

Is the Christian full of horse bleep?

Is that an example of false modesty?

Let's get back to our little scenario.

There are other libs watching the debate and they say this: "Christian, I'm going to pat you on the back and give you the nod of approval that you so desperately seek by praising you publicly for your tone. Your civility. You <respect> my fellow lib's opinion that it's okay to kill a Jew (or black or unborn child)"

Let's ask, what exactly happens when the Christian says, "I respect your opinion"? Is he merely describing his mood? Is he communicating his *feelings*? Is he begging to be spared public humiliation because he is disagreeing with the libs?

Is it an example of false modesty?

Furthermore, the question is <should> we respect such a view?

It's 1933 and Hitler is a member of this site. We don't know who he is yet and he's anonymous as well. He comes here and argues that it's good for Germany to put 6 million Jews in the oven and press <Bake>.

You disagree with him.

Should you say, "I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion." ??

Is that what you would say? If not, why not?

Wouldn't it seem disingenuous to say to Hitler, "I respect your opinion" and Hitler rewards you with, "Well, it's certainly nice to speak with someone civil for a change, unlike that <Big Pawn> fellow who told me I was a monster JUST BECAUSE I disagree with him!"

Not the same thing.