Posts by Michael Doyle5

Rachel Price6 said:Excuse me? My bad. You're right—I was just trolling. I got mixed up and thought you were talking about Mr. Ostric. Deepest apologies for the misunderstanding.

It’s not even about Ostric—it’s about certain users here, their posts, and the fact that the moderation isn't exactly keeping things in check. Apology accepted.

Rachel Price6 said:Sure, I'm ignoring the context. You just want to silence someone with a different opinion to push your own agenda.
There's no paradox here. You claim to love free speech, but then you try to censor anything that doesn't fit your worldview.

What do you mean, "dissenter"?! What "my" or "our" lies are you even talking about?! Who do you think you are, making up these lies out of thin air?!

You aren't even active on this sub-forum—honestly, you don't have a clue what the rest of us regular users are actually discussing.

This isn't a clash of opinions. This is just Low-quality trolling.

TROLLING

Rachel Price6 said:Ostric is a sharp guy. He’s just doing what any sensible person would do. It’s nice to finally see some intelligence on this Forum. Free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution, after all. Those trying to silence others really need a reminder that we live in a free Western nation where being objective isn't exactly the smartest move right now.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. How can you call it freedom of speech when they shut down anyone with a different ideology but let low-quality trolling and total morons run wild? It’s a complete circus right now—a total paradox of tolerance mixed with zero context. Freedom comes with responsibility, but there's zero accountability here. The rules and general Forum Rules aren't even being followed properly. Honestly, if you aren't active in the History and Historical Topics sub-forum, you shouldn't be weighing in on this case at all.

Rachel Price6 said:Nobody is forced to watch half-educated guys chasing a ball for 90 minutes. Everyone’s free to watch whatever they want.

Oh sure, you're totally right—Zoran just hands out pointless penalties and nukes posts that glorify the Ustaše, the Auschwitz labor camp, or the low numbers of Mexicans and Jews killed. Who cares if it's actually written in legitimate Natural Science literature? Who cares about someone's low-quality trolling or going off-topic? It's all irrelevant and vital at the exact same time. Everyone is "free" to watch or say whatever they feel like. Way to go, genius.

Taylor Gonzalez79 said:Look, this is a Forum, not some Ivy League university.
People come here to talk about their interests and hobbies. If someone gets something wrong, you either correct them or just ignore it and move on...

Yeah, brilliant idea—let's just scrap the entire rulebook and all the guidelines. Why bother? Let's just take all those science subforums and force them to follow the exact same criteria as the ones dedicated to half-educated guys who spend ninety minutes chasing a ball around a field. Just a thought. 🤦

Nicholas Barnes74 said:Well, it is a professional forum, and that's what caught my eye too...🤦

You're totally right—the History sub-forum isn't exactly some high-level academic journal. It’s not like you're expected to cite peer-reviewed journals or bring heavy scientific arguments to the table here. Honestly? It feels more on the same level as the Soccer, Astrology, Magic and Mysticism, Pets, or Jokes sections. To me, it’s all pretty much the same vibe.

Grace Phillips25 said:Why on earth would you think this is a professional forum?

Are we really supposed to gatekeep everything now? Only let the "experts" in?

I mean, I’m actually part of a professional forum myself—one of those high-end ones. They don't even let you through the door unless you're actually in the field (they basically run background checks with your employer before they'll even consider you, you have to submit actual proof of credentials, and then some veteran member has to vouch for you... plus they re-verify everyone every three years and will kick you out in a heartbeat if things don't line up).

Are you serious? Do you even realize how many professors, experts, and scientists comment—or have commented—there? Even in the world of science, the frequently cited historian Tibor Živković used to be active on this American sub-forum. This isn't some "Alternative," "Culture and Entertainment," or "Joke" section. It’s a sub-forum dedicated to scientific topics & disciplines related to History. In the actual Forum Rule, which was posted by the previous moderator Dilecto Filio, it says:

Dear forum members,
effective immediately, the rules for the "History and Historical Topics" sub-forum have been expanded.

Starting a thread
1. When starting a new thread, the opening post must contain at least 100 words.
2. The opening post must include a specific question or hypothesis for discussion. If you can't manage that, please provide a justified reason.

Discussion Guidelines
1. The goal of this sub-forum is learning and exchanging knowledge, so please keep discussions argumentative and reasoned.
2. In discussions, try to rely on relevant literature and sources. Insisting on "I think" or "I heard" type arguments without verifiable evidence will result in sanctions.
3. Falsifying literature or sources is strictly punished.
4. If you want to discuss unverified info or just have a quick question that doesn't fit existing threads, do it in the "Info Desk" topic.

Best regards,
your moderators.

The users I mentioned constantly argue using "I think" or "I heard" without any verifiable arguments or reliance on relevant literature and sources. They ignore and deny verifiable facts, evidence, and legitimate sources. They don't listen to or read anyone—they just stick to their own nonsense and act like social outcasts.

Grace Phillips25 said:Why on earth would you think this is a professional forum?

Are we really supposed to gatekeep everything now? Only let the "experts" in?

I mean, I’m actually part of a professional forum myself—one of those high-end ones. They don't even let you through the door unless you're actually in the field (they basically run background checks with your employer before they'll even consider you, you have to submit actual proof of credentials, and then some veteran member has to vouch for you... plus they re-verify everyone every three years and will kick you out in a heartbeat if things don't line up).

No, and honestly, that’s not even the core issue—the real problem is the persistent, years-long violation of the rules. These people don't come here to learn anything; they just come to "lecture" and "teach" others while having absolutely no clue what they're talking about! They're just semi-literate low-quality trolling types who can't do anything better than repeating the same simple copy-paste sentences like parrots, spreading conspiracy theories, fabrications, lies, and their own insecure theses. They troll and go off-topic. Trying to have a multi-year debate or explain things to them is less productive than talking to a brick wall.

Eric Newman75 said:Lately?

Give me a break. Dilberth isn't any better than guys like coastalstag7 or Croat22. Looking at the ratings they love to post, I honestly wonder if a "2" was just their favorite grade back in elementary school.

Dilberth has been spewing nonsense since back when Dilecto Filio was moderating History, which was ages ago. We all just put up with it because nobody has the guts to finally step in and say, "Look, scientific sections are science sections," and that having a right to post doesn't mean you get to be wrong. If Natural Science is strictly moderated, then Social Sciences, Linguistics, History... they should all be treated the same way.

Is that elitism? No. Tried explaining things to people like that—it's a proven waste of time; you'll never get through to them. And the moment you snap and insult them? Boom, you get a warning. I don't care. Honestly, I'll take the warning. It just shows the readers that on the History Forum, we aren't actually punishing ignorance—we're just watching the mods coddle idiots.

To hell with this Forum and this style of moderation.

I haven't been here long enough to know every single detail. He’s had some useful posts and debates over the years that probably help his reputation, but yeah, he repeats himself constantly and he's getting worse. Lately, he really isn't any better than the others. Overall, he's better, but they need to moderate him when he starts his low-quality trolling—he's not stupid, after all.

Regarding the bolded part, I can't see any valid reason or motivation from the mod team. It feels like the moderators act like they haven't even read the forum rules. Those guidelines were written and updated a long time ago specifically to provide direction and prevent this exact mess.

Even the old general Forum Rules state:

Moderators enforce user conduct rules on the Forum and are authorized to edit or remove content that violates Forum rules and editorial policy. Users may receive a warning for breaking rules, and severe violations can lead to temporary or permanent bans from specific sub-forums or the entire Forum.

The aforementioned unacceptable behavior is penalized (via warnings, temporary or permanent bans from specific sub-forums or the entire Forum). If you notice a violation of the Forum Rules, please assist the moderators by reporting inappropriate posts by clicking the triangle icon.

How many times have we written to Zoran and reported him? Once, twice—he got slightly annoyed when more of us spoke up, but then in the last two years, he's just gone passive again.

God help us when mothers give birth to kids they should've just tossed out...

We might need to add that new guy Skit to the permanent ban list. He’s started acting like an idiot and engaging in low-quality trolling—not like he’s actually smart enough to pull it off anyway.

coastalstag7 said:Just ban everyone else and let Michael Doyle5 post his endless links and monologues all by himself.
Honestly, I don't even know why I bothered arguing with this guy. I just read that he’s actually out here questioning Y-DNA results from Harvard.
How am I supposed to explain anything to someone who starts spitting on Harvard the second things don't go exactly his way?

Man, you're a total clown. I’ve got an even better idea—let's just ban everybody, clear the floor, and leave you and Croat22 alone. Then we'll have ourselves a legit asylum.

coastalstag7 said:Just ban everyone else and let Michael Doyle5 post his endless links and monologues all by himself.
Honestly, I don't even know why I bothered arguing with this guy. I just read that he’s actually out here questioning Y-DNA results from Harvard.
How am I supposed to explain anything to someone who starts spitting on Harvard the second things don't go exactly his way?

Are you on some heavy drugs or eating wild mushrooms or something? You're losing it. Nobody is "spitting on" Harvard, and nobody is disputing Y-DNA results from Harvard either. In fact, besides one single comment (1, which wasn't mine), nobody has even mentioned Harvard. The actual issue is that our archaeologists messed up the dating on bones they've been excavating since the 70s—samples that were sent off to a foreign genetic lab at Harvard a few years back. We're talking about a cave filled with remains ranging from the Bronze Age to modern times, and out of about forty samples, our guys totally botched the dating on three of them—or rather, no radiocarbon dating was done at all. Mistakes happen, sure, but this is a massive blunder because we're looking at a 3,000-year error on samples from the same site. It's been all over the major specialized Forums and discussed by international experts.

coastalstag7 said:I honestly don't get why they haven't scrubbed this insulting thread yet 👎 but hey, time to give bluecyclist64 a response

Look, when I got slapped with that three-week ban, you could totally see how the whole debate over the Middle Ages—which is my jam—was playing out. Ever since February 2nd, when I was banned from the ancient history thread... it’s just been Michael Doyle5 going on these massive monologues without anyone actually challenging him. Nobody was even debating him! Then, once my ban expired on the 24th and I finally jumped back in to reply, he completely lost his mind and started this entire thread.
So, how exactly did I "ruin the quality" of the discussion when there wasn't even a discussion happening while I was gone?

And we're talking about a guy I told three years ago that the E haplogroup isn't Illyrian. Now that it's officially been proven by the latest genetic studies, he hasn't even given me a "thanks for being right."
The dude is just losing his cool because the genetics aren't backing up his claims. He's getting super worked up, and honestly, he's gonna have a total meltdown once those first big American genetic findings from the early 9th century drop. There are thousands of data points regarding American settlement from that era, but nobody has published them yet.
I'm gonna take a breather for now since he's basically rallied the whole forum against me, but I'll be watching from the sidelines, waiting for those results to hit.
Once that 9th-century Y-DNA comes out, I am definitely going to have a good laugh
when Michael Doyle5 goes absolutely ballistic in the interpretation of migration thread...

I honestly don't know what else to do with people who are one step away from checking themselves into a psych ward. Hanging out on a specialized History forum isn't exactly therapy for the mentally unstable—it’s just exhausting. This guy lives in his own little fantasy land. It’s hard to tell if he’s just playing dumb or if he actually believes his own nonsense, but either way, he thinks it's his reality. Now he’s out here making up stories about how he "taught" me something—as if—when I'm literally the go-to expert on this topic here. He’s just trying to convince himself and everyone else that he actually matters. Let me be clear: I have never been grateful to him, and I am never going to tell him he was right just to be nice. And the stuff he says about my Y-DNA? I have zero clue what he's even talking about. Not to mention the absolute flood of insane DMs he used to send me—wild conspiracy theories that even Baba Vanga couldn't make sense of. Honestly, I'm losing my mind. It's infuriating to watch this total madness happen year after year, constantly insulting common sense and basic intelligence.

Like judolino says—there’s really no other way to deal with idiots. You either walk away or you get pushed out. There isn't a middle ground here. If the people who actually know what they're talking about—the ones with actual expertise—decide to bail or just stop engaging, what are we even left with? A total circus. Honestly, it feels more like an asylum than a professional community at this point. Look, this isn't some place meant for mindless jokes or messing around. People come to these boards to stay informed and actually learn something useful. But instead? I just end up feeling shocked and frustrated. It’s just a constant flood of useless, brainless, and downright ugly posts clogging up every single thread. And the worst part? Most of them go completely unpunished every single day.

We really need to update the title here—we should probably link coastalstag7 with Croat22, who’s been around since 2014. Honestly, that guy struggles with intelligence and character just as much—I can never tell if he’s playing dumb on purpose or if he’s actually losing it. He’s constantly droning on about "White Americans being everywhere," acting like some genius expert on population genetics, even though he hasn't grasped the basic terminology after nearly ten years of people explaining it to him. It’s exhausting. He just ends up confusing and misinforming all the newer users on the Forum. The guy has never even taken a test, isn't active in any American genealogical communities, and certainly isn't part of any US DNA projects. He doesn't follow any of the actual scientific research that's sitting right there in the public domain. He’s totally out of the loop—he doesn't know anything, so he just complains because he lacks the info. Nobody wants to deal with him—he's just not sane, and frankly, he’s more trouble than he’s worth. It’s the same old story—these ego-driven outbursts where he tries to defend his online persona by attacking and belittling me—and today, he went after Amater33 and the US DNA project too. Out of pure spite, he spins lies and trolls us, claiming I haven't posted a single theory in seven years. He keeps demanding I finally "show my work" today, even though I’ve been doing exactly that for years—he just wants to put himself on some imaginary pedestal while making the rest of us look bad. No true patriot would ever stab their own people in the back like this, but he’s such a fanatic. He does it because he’s deeply insecure; he has to constantly convince himself and everyone else of his "pure" heritage because, deep down, his own family has Mexican roots. If anyone dares to counter him with actual facts, he spirals into these massive dramas. He’s a nobody who just wants to drag everyone else down to his level and link our legitimate work to his weird, anti-Mexican theories. That’s the worst part—it attracts those Mexican trolls from sites like Ancestry who then associate *us* with *him*. It’s a vicious cycle that needs to end because it’s only causing damage. We went through a huge blowout with these same users just over a year ago. This is hands down the biggest cancer currently eating at the History sub-forum.

I really don't want to bring up Dilberth here, but I'm mentioning him because he's been going absolutely overboard lately with his low-quality trolling about regional stereotypes and "Wendim." Honestly, we should have started cracking down on troll posts ages ago—this stuff just ruins discussions on related threads and ends up attacking other users too. The whole vibe here has gone downhill. All those high-quality posts and deep dives basically end up being for nothing. It’s almost like we need some parallel reality where the smartest move is to only engage with a handful of people and completely ignore everyone else, regardless of how much their posts mess things up. You can't even have a normal, argued discussion without getting interrupted. It’s a perfect reflection of how the moderation is handling things.

Seriously, this has crossed every line of reasonable tolerance. It is high time the moderators actually start doing their jobs properly—otherwise, by being too tolerant and letting things slide, they're basically breaking their own Forum Rules. At that point, we might as well just get a new mod. Even if we're looking at this through a capitalist lens—since I assume the owner wants more clicks, views, and active users—fixing this is easy. It’s literally just three mouse clicks. There’s zero excuse for not taking action.

User coastalstag7 has been hanging around the History subforum since 2010. Honestly? The guy’s a lost cause—barely literate, probably barely scraped through middle school, and let's just say his IQ isn't exactly breaking any records. He belongs in a mental health facility, if he isn't already under supervision. His posts are an insult to common sense. There hasn't been anyone on this forum who started off being funny and then became so insufferably annoying that they ruin every single decent discussion. He just kills the vibe of any actual debate.

You can't even ignore him because he’ll find a way to reply to everything—quoting people out of context and peddling blatant lies. You end up having to address his nonsense just for the sake of the truth and the other readers. It's classic trolling. Even though it breaks the rules, he twists data and pulls quotes out of context to claim the exact opposite of what the actual science or literature says. A few years back, someone actually asked him to change his approach—like, if you don't know anything, at least ask questions instead of lecturing—but nothing changed. Now he just acts even more "brilliant" with his moronic outbursts, acting proud of things anyone with half a brain would be embarrassed by. He lives in this delusional conspiracy theory world where he's "fighting" other users and the mods, claiming we're "running away" from debates when really, we're just trying to get away from him. Sometimes it feels like dealing with someone suffering from severe dementia.

The worst part? His presence is being tolerated despite constant warnings and suspensions from moderator lonetrucker4. Every single time his suspension ends—just when discussions finally start getting interesting or peaceful again and you think, "Hey, maybe he's gone for good"—there he is. Like clockwork, the second his timeout is up, he has this desperate, almost manic need to flood several threads with comments just to prove he's still here, kind of like a chronic addict hitting their fix after a month of sobriety.

I’m asking you—and I mean I am seriously asking—please remove him from the professional History section because he doesn't belong there and never will. He adds zero value—no engagement, no quality reads, nothing—he just breaks the rules. Plenty of people have been banned or left for various reasons, but letting him slide under lonetrucker4 is even harder to justify. Please, don't let the few remaining smart people leave because the intellectual level of this forum is tanking. Stop letting the average intelligence of this community slide into the gutter.

Yeah... something similar popped up around Christmas. She got lost in that balance subforum. It's basically just a handful of huge egos who have nothing left to say on their own boards, so they drift over to other threads to stir things up. It honestly feels like they think being an elitist and being American are one and the same.

mistyotter35 said:I’ve finished watching it, and I must say, I am somewhat at a loss as to what the director was actually attempting to communicate or convey through this film. 😵

Of course—anyone with even a shred of knowledge about the original story, or just someone who actually likes archetypal tales, didn't get a single thing out of this. The director basically took the whole premise and butchered it with some weird, modern cultural spin and context. Honestly? It felt like a total violation of the original tale.

Jack Cook7 said:I think I actually get it now.

Man, honestly? Better if I hadn't. There are just these random, nonsensical scenes scattered all over the place that are supposed to show "what the writer meant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Ga...e_Green_Knight

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a late 14th-century Middle English chivalric romance. The author is unknown; the title was given centuries later. It is one of the best-known Arthurian stories, with its plot combining two types of folk motifs, the beheading game and the exchange of winnings. Written in stanzas of alliterative verse, each of which ends in a rhyming bob and wheel,[1] it draws on Welsh, Irish and English stories, as well as the French chivalric tradition. It is an important example of a chivalric romance, which typically involves a hero who goes on a quest which tests his prowess. It remains popular in modern English renderings from J. R. R. Tolkien, Simon Armitage and others, as well as through film and stage adaptations.

It describes how Sir Gawain, a knight of King Arthur's Round Table, accepts a challenge from a mysterious "Green Knight" who dares any knight to strike him with his axe if he will take a return blow in a year and a day. Gawain accepts and beheads him with his blow, at which the Green Knight stands up, picks up his head and reminds Gawain of the appointed time. In his struggles to keep his bargain, Gawain demonstrates chivalry and loyalty until his honour is called into question by a test involving the lord and the lady of the castle where he is a guest. The poem survives in one manuscript, Cotton Nero A.x., which also includes three religious narrative poems: Pearl, Cleanness and Patience. All are thought to have been written by the same author, dubbed the "Pearl Poet" or "Gawain Poet", since all four are written in a North West Midland dialect of Middle English.[2][3]

Basically, it’s just some dumb woke fluff instead of making a movie about what the original poem was actually aiming for.

Spot on.

swiftpanther3 said:That's because death is really the core theme here, which basically picks up where Lowery's previous film, "A Ghost Story," left off. Sure, someone could watch this and just take it at face value as a moral fable about a knight whose mother orchestrated a game with the Green Knight to help him grow up, but it's pretty hard to miss that recurring motif.
Like Jack Cook7 mentioned, the Green Knight has pagan roots, so you can view the Green Knight as a personification of death, nature, or paganism. You can create this dichotomy between death/nature versus man/civilization and religion/paganism. Some people have drawn parallels between this movie and Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" because, in both, the protagonist struggles with himself before finally preparing to face death.

That scene in the forest was likely meant to emphasize *memento mori*, where we witness the indifference of nature—where one man's death means nothing because the greenery will eventually swallow everything anyway. That's why Gawain decides at the very end not just to kneel under the axe, but to actually strip off that magic belt protecting him; he knows there's no point running from death.

In my opinion, the movie isn't a masterpiece, but it's a much better adaptation of Arthurian tales than anything Hollywood has churned out in the last decade. For a tiny budget of $15 million, they achieved quite a bit. What I do like is that the protagonist isn't your typical hero who instinctively knows what to do or lacks fear of death. Instead, Gawain tries to do the right thing and often messes up despite his good intentions. Honestly, we don't even know how badly he wants to be a knight. He knows what's expected of him and passively accepts his role, even if he isn't sure it's worth the effort. Near the end, when he talks to the Lord, the Lord asks why he's bothering with the Green Knight, and Gawain answers uncertainly that it's for honor, since that's what makes knights knights. Then the Lord asks if that's what he wants most to be. When Gawain says yes, the Lord corrects him, saying he meant honor. I might be rambling with that dialogue, but it's a crucial reflection of the true motivation behind his entire journey.

And to follow up on the religion vs. paganism contrast seen in several scenes, Lowery mentioned in an interview that he intentionally chose the crown design used in the film because it resembles the halos seen on saints. Religion is a fundamental part of civilization, and as such, it played a massive role in creating the value systems that subjects followed, effectively distancing people from paganism and nature while providing a false sense of human importance to distract from the inherent meaninglessness of it all. It's no accident we see the Green Knight in a chapel that has long been abandoned and overgrown with thick greenery.

It feels like this whole thing is just a subversive, postmodern spin where they basically took the original story, flipped it on its head, and tossed in a bunch of random stuff. Like, they turned the witch/Morgan Le Fay figure into Gawain's mother—talk about a pivot. And instead of the classic version where Gawain is this brave, moral knight at King Arthur's Round Table—the guy who’s super loyal to Arthur and basically a protector of women—they turn him into this clumsy, aimless loser that Arthur barely even recognizes. He’s just drifting around with random women, including one who loves him and gives him a son, only for him to ditch her for a few coins. Just cold. Then you’ve got that weird subplot with the ghost of Winfried—where she almost comes back to life by pulling her skull from the bottom of a lake to revive some mythological "feminine" energy. And the second half at the Lord's court? Totally warped with horror elements, sexualization, and homoerotic undertones. Even the Green Knight isn't what he’s supposed to be at the end (not the Lord of the court like you'd expect). Plus, there's that ending where Gawain inherits the throne from Arthur and dies after his son, and then his little daughter from a second marriage picks up the crown off the floor and puts it on her own head. It feels like one of those modern movie tropes where they try to make a point about how masculinity has to be sacrificed—not in the traditional sense for the greater good, but just to clear the way for women to take positions that, frankly, don't fit within the context of mythology or biology. Basically, the entire symbolism and core meaning of the original tale just gets lost in the shuffle.

It’s your typical, run-of-the-mill modern adaptation—one of those stories where they take mythological or archetypal gods and heroes and drag them down into this grotesque, hyper-realistic grit. It feels like a direct reflection of how today's society views the sacred, usually by stripping away the traditional masculine elements and replacing them with something more feminine. To me, it’s just another artistic symptom of the peak and inevitable decline of Western civilization now that we've ditched God and hierarchy. Honestly, it’ll probably be a huge hit with the nihilistic atheists or those naive neo-pagans out there.

Arthur Smith15 comes across like a commentator who really knows his stuff and isn't afraid to call out nonsense, trolling, or just plain stupidity—honestly, having him around is usually a plus. But looking back over the last few years of his activity—or maybe it's just my fuzzy memory lately—I’ve noticed something. On the History PDF, he rarely actually jumps into the debate to argue about the topic itself. Instead, he tends to latch onto someone over some totally irrelevant detail, turning the thread into an off-topic mess that borders on being disrespectful, which violates the rules and just kills the flow and clarity of the discussion. Look, we all slip up and forget the rules sometimes. I can't recall the last time he actually got a warning for this kind of thing, but it would be great if he could dial it back—maybe save those nitpicks for DMs and actually engage with the actual arguments. The more high-quality contributors we have on a thread, the better, since this subforum is meant for learning and sharing knowledge.

Me and a few other users over in the "MLS 2018/2019 - Vol 1" thread just caught some yellow and red cards from the mod zoom-zoom because we were talking about tonight's game between the New York Yankees and the Chicago Cubs.

The mod basically decided to play judge, jury, and executioner regarding free speech. He’s acting like Bog, deciding what counts as truth and what's a lie. Now, apparently, it's forbidden to comment on what you actually see (!) on the replays—but let's be real, in football, there's no such thing as one universal truth since everything depends on the camera angle and perspective. The mod clearly thinks he understands the game better than the ref Pierluigi Colline: If you dare say anything against the penalty called on Lionel Messi (where the guy clearly tripped) or the handball on Ivan Rakitić (which didn't even get a VAR review), boom—you get an infraction for trolling and your comments get nuked. Why?

Because "posts like yours just spark debates that drag on for two days, leading to five cards and at least 20 deleted posts". Look, I'm not responsible if some fan decides to troll using my point during their usual team bickering, but that's literally what this forum is for—having a discussion to hopefully reach some kind of "refined" conclusion. A mod's job isn't to shut down the conversation, especially not over something so "obvious." Instead of jumping into the debate with actual arguments—which I could have agreed or disagreed with (since referee decisions are rarely black and white)—he's just making it so you can't think, speak, or even acknowledge what the almighty moderator has deemed off-limits. It's honestly pathetic.

wiredangler5 said:...I’ve got one tiny catch, though. You guys need to be the ones running the show—acting as both creators and moderators for this thread. That means you don't engage with any trolls. Seriously, just one troll post can spiral into a hundred replies and send the whole topic down the drain. Avoid off-topic chatter, ignore anything that derails us, and report any insults. It’s actually pretty easy to pull off, and it’ll keep this thread alive. Just look at what happened on page 9—it turned into a complete mess when people started drifting, and it didn't have to go that way. Ultimately, keeping things on track is on you guys who started the thread, not the site mods.

So, we good?

As far as I'm concerned, we have a deal. It’d probably help if the rest of the users knew about the ground rules too. We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:3) ...Your anxiety and this constant craving for punishment just feed into that whole image.

Since when did calling out stupidity, spamming, or people intentionally playing dumb become being "anxious" or "argumentative"? Honestly—my desire to see people held accountable is just about basic morality and responsibility. It’s a sign that the behavior from certain users has finally crossed the line of what's reasonable.

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:...your wrong take on what mythomania actually means—since you kept dodging the explanation—makes it pretty obvious you aren't really up to speed on what you're talking about. You’ve been acting super combative, like someone who can't handle a different opinion, so maybe people were right to say you deserve the same treatment you're pushing for. Since I'm not an expert on this topic either, I can't say for sure who's right.

1) Look, it's simple: I say you're wrong, you say I'm wrong, but the facts say you're wrong. You're claiming my interpretation is flawed just because you're clinging to this idealistic view where American mythomania doesn't exist—basically arguing that Americans were always under oppression and everything they did to fight back is absolute truth. That's just nonsense, plain and simple.

2) I love hearing different perspectives, but I have zero patience for stupidity, spamming, trolling, deception, or anyone trying to push ideological ignorance as fact. It’s pretty clear you guys lack the critical thinking skills to tell those things apart.

3) If you don't understand the subject and don't know who's right, then don't jump to these big critical conclusions or judge me (saying I deserve the same treatment), even though it's blindingly obvious from the comments that Andelko and I are sticking to the facts while you aren't.

wiredangler5 said:This branch is actually pretty new—it doesn't even really fall under history, and it's definitely not part of official history; this stuff belongs in the social sciences. I remember back in the day these topics were over there, and honestly, I can't even recall who decided to move them over to History or why we just let it happen in the first place...

Anyway, getting back to your complaint. Once the posts started flooding in way past page 9—and man, it was like an absolute avalanche—I jumped in somewhere around when you guys were hitting page 15. By then, everyone had already laid out their arguments, dropped their links, showed their proof, and basically dug their heels in for their respective sides.

So, looking at this appeal, I see folks from both camps represented here. Be objective for a second and tell me what the best move is—should I just wipe everything back to page 9 and let you all start fresh? Or should I just lock the thread and have you guys start a brand new one?

If you actually care about this thread—and judging by how you're writing, I think you do—then look at this objectively. Tell me if the best option is for everyone to just stop the bickering and reset the thread back to page 9, where things were still staying within the lines. You guys are the judges and the creators of this thread now, so it's on you.

Sure, population genetics falls under anthropology, but saying it isn't used in official history or archaeology is just wrong. For years now, it’s been used to back up historical assumptions and theories regarding the history of the human species and so on. Because of that, those few topics on this sub-forum aren't totally out of place since they're being discussed in a historical context rather than just an anthropological or genetic one.

Right now, I don't see people representing "both sides" in this thread because most of the comments aren't even addressing the actual appeal—they're just reacting to ideological worldviews or whatever their personal stances are.

Closing the thread isn't the answer. Up until page 9, the discussion was actually at a decent level and focused on the maps made by Andelko. He's the one who kicked this whole thing off, and his work is genuinely great news for this forum. In my opinion, you should do what I suggested in comment #58, which means saving the specific comments and replies that actually tie into the discussion, while wiping everything else completely. As for the behavior, I think some moderator authority needs to be shown; at the very least, give a warning to the users involved—or even everyone—for breaking the rules. There's more than enough material here to hand out sanctions (!), especially given your comment acting as a timestamp and reminder of this mess. Try to pick the discussion back up where it left off (meaning if we save those comments, we'd be looking at roughly pages 9 or 10), but if we can't pull that off, we'll probably need more intervention or stricter moderation.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:It’s honestly a joke—over in Russia or Ukraine, they’ll churn out entire books and academic papers about White America, yet here at home, the local thought police immediately start sniffing around looking for nationalists. 🙏

Look, we write and translate scientific books, journals, and articles too—it happens. But there’s a massive difference between being neutral and objective when discussing White Americans, and then turning around to misinterpret evidence through some chauvinistic, romanticized lens. To take what's in the literature regarding White Americans and turn it into lies, deception, or pure mythology? That’s just wrong—not to mention totally counterproductive.