Posts by Jonathan Wright2

I just saw that Novak Djokovic actually did a gender reveal for a random couple. That is such a wild way to find out if it's a boy or a girl. Does anyone else think celebrity involvement in stuff like this is getting a bit out of hand?

Joseph Allen71 said:Pigs on the wing.Well, since you're actually asking...

Thanks for the audio...

Joseph Allen71 said:If you're actually curious about what I’d be dying to read—honestly? It would be that second volume of the series. That's the only thing on my radar right now.
If you really want to level up the quality of the discussions around here—and I mean actually make things better instead of just circling the drain—you should try my favorite method: just constantly retell that old joke about the guy driving his sedan the wrong way down the interstate.
Look, I don't feel like holding back anymore—it’s time to go on the offensive. I don't even know where to start with this one—it’s just absolute madness. Honestly, I feel like I’m losing my mind just thinking about the sheer level of incompetence we're dealing with lately. It’s like nobody actually gives a damn anymore, you know? Everything is just... messy. It's a total disaster from top to bottom, and frankly, I'm exhausted just watching it unfold. I've been sitting here trying to make sense of it all, but the more I look, the more I realize how much of a joke the whole situation has become. It's frustrating, it's ridiculous, and quite honestly, it's just plain exhausting..

I've got nothing to say about this one. Honestly, just no comment.

Arthur Smith15 said:Of course I’m following them—those total frauds. The NFL is the gold standard, period.

Oh, "fraud," he says... give me a break...

Arthur Smith15 said:No, you're the fraud and the counterfeiter, end of story.

Nah. You're just an asshole.

Grace Wood5 said:I wasn't picking a fight here; I was just stating the facts.
If you don't know the difference, go look it up in a dictionary. 🙂

Just take whatever part of that makes you feel better...👍

Joseph Allen71 said:Well, why don't you just take a hike? 🙂
If this is how you're acting when you actually have your head on straight, then honestly, you need to change—it's basically mandatory at this point.

So, what exactly are you hoping to hear after all that?

Arthur Smith15 said:Look, you're a proven fraud and a total hack, so don't even think about offering suggestions—just quit with this nonsense already.

My bad if I'm being a nuisance, I wasn't sure if you were even reading this...

Fine, if you want to cast me as the villain and the con artist in your little world, then fine—be that way. Just get one thing straight: don't come crawling to me when you need help.
I'm not your guy for that.

You’re basically stripping away my right to suggest ways to actually make this forum better, all while you indulge in this childish, ego-driven lecturing just to feel superior to everyone else here..

Just knock it off and grow up..👍

Grace Wood5 said:🤣 Dammit, you can find more sense in a fortune cookie than in this thread. This whole topic is just a massive pile of nonsense.
🤣

Give it a rest.

Look, lonetrucker4, I truly wish you nothing but the best, I really do—but man, you’ve gotta try to step back and look at the big picture here. We’re stuck in this endless cycle of conflict that’s been dragging on way too long, and we aren't getting anywhere...

lonetrucker4 said:Check out this absolute joke:

All because this guy can't grasp the basics of actually quoting someone correctly.

Seriously, just take a look... please.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

No.
No.
Not a chance, lonetrucker4.
That’s just your little mantra that you keep looping over and over.
Whether it's Captain or Major, anyone who actually knows their history isn't confused by it. And for those following this thread? Even less so.
Ivan Ribar Sr. and Ivan Ribar Jr. are names found in official records. "Lolo" is a nickname. Period.

Glad you brought this up again... precisely what I'm talking about. About your mindless sanctions if someone doesn't use "Lolo" or "Major/Captain"...
You look at this community as if it's just a bunch of clueless idiots. You're acting like some small-town schoolteacher trying to lecture everyone.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Whether it's a quote or not, it doesn't mean anything to you.
I quoted the Velebit text, and then you just deleted it.
The real diagnosis here is that nothing exists unless you personally approve of it.
A person should be able to act however they want, but you've got this bitter attitude eating you alive, and you're dumping it all on your colleagues.
Do us all a favor: let go of your own baggage and stop dumping it on the rest of us..

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Yeah, hilarious.. You're right about that...
Let me explain it to you for the 7th time.
What I explained to you in our private messages, which you completely ignored, is this:
If the official name of the armed forces of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia prior to the collapse in 1941 was the "Yugoslav Royal Army," then we have to conclude that Mihailović's drunken attempt to start a parallel organization involved dropping "Royal" from the name, even though that force was actually loyal to the King...
That was my point. That's how I answered you..
But if you recall, I explained the exact same logic regarding the OZNA/Intelligence Department.
And there's no need to write out "OZNA" just because some random person in 1946 wrote it that way by accident..

Thanks for reminding me why we always butt heads... Now that I look at it, most of this stuff is incredibly minor and honestly pretty irrelevant, but apparently, it’s the entire foundation of how you operate. It’s just unnecessary to start handing out sanctions over tiny details that don't even change the actual context of the conversation.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Classic you... You think you're right. And that's all that matters to you. If you decide something is true, then in your head, it just is.
Honestly, you're a terrible choice for a moderator.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

My mistake for not emphasizing that specific term enough. You've got a point there.
But you are dead wrong when you suggest this was some sort of coastal battalion mentioned years later.
If we're following the trail, the truth is... it was an unidentified local anti-fascist group that eventually evolved into something else.
The whole point was to prove that the official government encyclopedias aren't the final word on everything.
History is mostly written after the fact... at least, a good chunk of it is.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Me?
So what about it?
Look, I’ve got an opinion—whether I’m wrong or not, just leave it alone... just let me post. If I’m off base, then shut me down with actual arguments.
But you aren't even letting this forum function like a damn forum.
That's the whole point here.
The alternative is that everyone should just write exactly how you want them to.
And that's just nonsense.

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Are you kidding me right now..?
You're joking, right?
Data from 1986?!
When the plaque was put up back in 2012, or somewhere around there....
I mean, come on, get real... To you, data from the old American era is the only thing that matters, while anything more recent doesn't count.
Let's be clear here.... I am not a revisionist, I'm not some far-right extremist, and I don't belong to any weird political factions.. Quite the opposite, actually.
But history is still being uncovered today...
And we are talking about specific details here.
Maybe there were some communists or Young Communist League types in that organization, but it wasn't a dominant communist sub-group..
Maybe in some historical revisions from the 70s or 80s it becomes that...

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Stubbornly defending my right to ignorance...
Now that is rich..👍

If you'll permit me, I've got a little critique for you too.
You're basically acting like you have a monopoly on the truth.

Honestly, this is just completely bizarre. 🤔

lonetrucker4 said:You got banned because you were being "creative" with the facts—changing terms like swapping out ranks until the history doesn't even make sense anymore. It’s like trying to rewrite an old textbook by mistake; you end up mixing up famous historical figures and their fathers like they're nothing. Total mess.

Hard to talk to someone who just writes endless manifestos instead of actually grasping the basic concept of a direct quote.

Man, I still can't get over that absolute gem of a moment when you lectured us all about how Draža Mihailović totally botched his group's name—saying he should've called them the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" instead of the "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland." Like, thanks for the correction, genius. 😂

So, there's Tito... I call him Mr. [REDACTED] a few times, and lonetrucker4 snaps at me to stop because apparently I'm "confusing the audience." Please.

Everyone knows who Tito was. Calling him "Mr. Broz," just like calling someone "Mr. Hitler"—it’s a joke. A bad one. And hey, you didn't even get banned for that.

Don't go thinking you can just wing it with whatever style you feel like.

Exactly. You can't play fast and loose with reality like you do, blurring the line between actual history and pure fiction. It’s easy for guys like "Mr. Tito" or "Mr. Stalin" to get away with it, but you’ve spent half your time making things up out of thin air—like that fake "American National Anti-Fascist Movement" nonsense. And when you finally realized there wasn't a shred of evidence that such a thing ever existed, you pivoted straight into classic conspiracy theory mode. You started spinning this yarn about how the Communists successfully scrubbed every single record from the FBI, CIA, and British archives, while simultaneously brainwashing every veteran and old-school conservative in exile so nobody would ever mention it again. Typical. 😵

I remember when I first started a thread about what it actually means to be a partisan... honestly, I shouldn't even bring it up, let alone try to have an opinion after seeing all the nonsense I read.

We’ve gone back and forth on where the terms "partisan" and "guerrilla" actually come from, and honestly, some of you guys dropped some real gems. Looking back at that thread you started—which, let’s be real, was a total mess at first—me and a few others actually added some value that you completely missed: The term "partisan" goes way back—we're talking 18th-century book titles like *The Partisan, or, The Art of Small-Scale Warfare*. You even had this medieval Italian polearm called a "partisan," and some folks even try to link the word back to "Pharisee." It's all over the place.

You brought up that "suburban youth anti-fascist group," claiming they weren't communist and that’s why "official history" ignores them. Man, if you’d just bothered to use Google—like I told you right away—you would've found a scholarly paper from '86 about them and plenty of other info.

It's like when someone mentions the OSS, so we spin it off into its own thread to help everyone learn. Instead, you’re out here aggressively defending your right to stay ignorant.

lonetrucker4 keeps insisting there shouldn't be investigations into the old Encyclopedia, but I say we're allowed to ask questions on this forum... Why the hell not?

Now this part is just straight-up baffling. 🤔

I'm not even talking to you—you're too damn stubborn for anything to sink in—I'm doing this for the people actually interested in learning.

Sure... The community is what matters, so don't act like you're the only one here.

Look, I’m thinking we should just let the regular users throw their hats in the ring, or maybe even just vote on a few names from within the community itself... Either way, we definitely need two more co-mods over on the History subforum.
We need some actual balance if we want this place to stay high-quality.

Eric Newman75 said:That’s not what I said. You kept doubling down on the whole "criticism" thing, and since you clearly value being a critic, let me clarify my point. Real critical thinking means actually digging through the available literature, noting the discrepancies, and then presenting an opposing view based on hard facts and evidence. But here’s the thing—both lonetrucker4 and several others pointed you toward books you haven't even cracked open. You didn't seem aware that tons of historians have done deep dives into the Battle of Sutjeska, much like they’ve studied the Ottoman expansion into Europe or the victims of old-school intelligence agencies. Instead, you just flat-out declared everything was garbage and demanded we start from scratch. Do you see the difference between your approach and actual methodology? Science has protocols; you can't just waltz in and spout nonsense. Did you study existing research? No. Did you build an actual argument? No. Instead, you just jumped straight to a conclusion. A conclusion that, as it turns out, was wrong. So, maybe don't act surprised when people call you out on it.

Nope, that's not how it works.
You're being totally unfair... I wasn't trying to tear everything down, I was just expressing doubt about certain sources...
And am I not allowed to do that?

Back in the day, I shared some quotes from a book by Vladimir Velebit... which obviously wasn't the smartest move because I ended up getting sanctioned for it... and he spent a good chunk of his work explaining the complexities of the conflict in Canada.

As for lonetrucker4, let me give you an example...
Take FDR, for instance... If I refer to him as Mr. Roosevelt a few times, lonetrucker4 jumps down my throat saying I shouldn't do it because I'm "confusing the public"... It's like they think we're all just mindless idiots who can't handle history unless it's spoon-fed to us through a tiny straw.
Or take Stalin... if I use his nickname, apparently that's off-limits too. I have to call him Stalin because that's just how it's done. It's standard practice.
Basically, you aren't allowed to write with any kind of flair or personal style without offending someone. You can't participate in historical discussion without it feeling like a grim, joyless slog of dates and doom.

There was even a time I started a thread about the concept of "partisans"... I can't even mention it, let alone share an opinion after reading up on it.
And honestly, that’s the most ridiculous part about lonetrucker4. It's like: "Sure, go ahead and read ten books, but don't you dare form an actual opinion." Don't have a thought. Just regurgitate a quote. That's the rule.

And that brings us back to our massive rift over how to interpret historical sources.
lonetrucker4 insists there should be no investigative questioning in the Encyclopedia of the former Yugoslavia, whereas I think we should absolutely be allowed to ask those questions here on the forum. Why on earth not?

Look, I'm not saying I'm right. You've made it pretty clear that you don't think I am.
Fine... maybe I'm not. Maybe to a lot of people, I'm not.
But the point of a rivalry shouldn't be to destroy the community; it should be to beat your opponent with better arguments.
Out of all the moderators, lonetrucker4 has the most grievances with the PŽK group..
That could mean he's doing a great job, or it could mean the exact opposite.

At first, I thought it was just me... I figured I was the only one feeling this way. Then I heard from another guy... then a third... then ten more.
It’s become a massive circle involving over a hundred people...
And the majority of them are fed up with lonetrucker4.
The heavy-handed editing. The censorship. The rigidity. The persecution. The senseless sanctions... It's all piling up. And since lonetrucker4 can't bring himself to practice any self-criticism for personal reasons, the whole forum is basically operating at a massive disadvantage.

Honestly, lonetrucker4 has the temperament of an NKVD commissar... He watches everyone, thinks everyone is suspicious, and demands that every single comma be justified.

Listen, truthfully... I'm not the main focus here... But lonetrucker4 is a top-tier forum user, no doubt about it. He's genuinely brilliant.
But as a moderator? He kills the vibe. He crushes satire. He scatters the energy.
And that’s bad news....

If people don't want to participate, there's clearly a reason. Acknowledge that reason. Actually listen to them for once.

driftingtinker said:Like I said before, if lonetrucker4 decides to bail, that whole subforum is pretty much dead in the water anyway.

But let’s be real here... that’s just straight-up impossible.

Eric Newman75 said:Oh, I definitely could. You kicked off that whole thread about the Ottoman Empire based on some guy's amateur lectures—and I use the word "lectures" very loosely. Then you spent half the time spouting absolute garbage regarding Turkish and European military history. Sure, you started that discussion on the Battle of Sutjeska with some potential, but then you spiraled into these wild theories that the old regime completely rewrote history, implying we need to scrap everything and start from scratch. And don't even get me started on your take regarding the execution of prisoners. You used that pathetic, over-dramatic rhetoric straight out of a cheap political manifesto: "How shall we confront this national trauma? How can we unite a fractured society?" It was honestly nauseating. If you had to deliver a weather report using that style, it would go something like this: "Heat! How has it overtaken America? Are we, as a society and as individuals, truly prepared for its arrival? Are we responsible? Have we come to terms with our current state? Is it enough to simply wade into the shallows and grab a beer, or do we require more long-term measures? Are we dedicating sufficient attention to the heatwave in our media and public discourse? Is the intellectual elite even engaging with this? Where is the line between mere warmth and a debilitating heatstroke, and will temperatures ever return to their former lows? Can we think with cool heads? How will future generations look back upon this moment, and can such a thing happen to us again?"

Look, it’s not personal. I have nothing against you, you don't bother me, and I’m certainly not telling you to leave. But seriously, ask yourself if the way you communicate is actually appropriate for a scholarly forum. I’m not saying things have to be dry and mind-numbing—not at all—but you just haven't done the legwork. Not once. Every single topic you touch is just a disorganized mess of half-baked ideas, and you can't make progress like that. All you end up doing is cheapening whatever intelligent points you actually manage to make.

Look, Miller was just a link... I don't actually take him seriously, but at the time I was listening to what he had to say, so I used him in the intro... Not that lonetrucker4 is going to hunt me down asking where I got all this info—I mean, a person can't just pull these things out of thin air without some kind of source, right?
Basically, you aren't allowed to have an opinion or think for yourself—you just have to follow the script. That’s the absolute worst thing about lonetrucker4. He just kills any actual discourse.

Eric Newman75 said:Oh, I definitely could. You kicked off that whole thread about the Ottoman Empire based on some guy's amateur lectures—and I use the word "lectures" very loosely. Then you spent half the time spouting absolute garbage regarding Turkish and European military history. Sure, you started that discussion on the Battle of Sutjeska with some potential, but then you spiraled into these wild theories that the old regime completely rewrote history, implying we need to scrap everything and start from scratch. And don't even get me started on your take regarding the execution of prisoners. You used that pathetic, over-dramatic rhetoric straight out of a cheap political manifesto: "How shall we confront this national trauma? How can we unite a fractured society?" It was honestly nauseating. If you had to deliver a weather report using that style, it would go something like this: "Heat! How has it overtaken America? Are we, as a society and as individuals, truly prepared for its arrival? Are we responsible? Have we come to terms with our current state? Is it enough to simply wade into the shallows and grab a beer, or do we require more long-term measures? Are we dedicating sufficient attention to the heatwave in our media and public discourse? Is the intellectual elite even engaging with this? Where is the line between mere warmth and a debilitating heatstroke, and will temperatures ever return to their former lows? Can we think with cool heads? How will future generations look back upon this moment, and can such a thing happen to us again?"

Look, it’s not personal. I have nothing against you, you don't bother me, and I’m certainly not telling you to leave. But seriously, ask yourself if the way you communicate is actually appropriate for a scholarly forum. I’m not saying things have to be dry and mind-numbing—not at all—but you just haven't done the legwork. Not once. Every single topic you touch is just a disorganized mess of half-baked ideas, and you can't make progress like that. All you end up doing is cheapening whatever intelligent points you actually manage to make.

I don't get it...
Am I not allowed to criticize or question the previous regime?

Eric Newman75 said:Oh, I definitely could. You kicked off that whole thread about the Ottoman Empire based on some guy's amateur lectures—and I use the word "lectures" very loosely. Then you spent half the time spouting absolute garbage regarding Turkish and European military history. Sure, you started that discussion on the Battle of Sutjeska with some potential, but then you spiraled into these wild theories that the old regime completely rewrote history, implying we need to scrap everything and start from scratch. And don't even get me started on your take regarding the execution of prisoners. You used that pathetic, over-dramatic rhetoric straight out of a cheap political manifesto: "How shall we confront this national trauma? How can we unite a fractured society?" It was honestly nauseating. If you had to deliver a weather report using that style, it would go something like this: "Heat! How has it overtaken America? Are we, as a society and as individuals, truly prepared for its arrival? Are we responsible? Have we come to terms with our current state? Is it enough to simply wade into the shallows and grab a beer, or do we require more long-term measures? Are we dedicating sufficient attention to the heatwave in our media and public discourse? Is the intellectual elite even engaging with this? Where is the line between mere warmth and a debilitating heatstroke, and will temperatures ever return to their former lows? Can we think with cool heads? How will future generations look back upon this moment, and can such a thing happen to us again?"

Look, it’s not personal. I have nothing against you, you don't bother me, and I’m certainly not telling you to leave. But seriously, ask yourself if the way you communicate is actually appropriate for a scholarly forum. I’m not saying things have to be dry and mind-numbing—not at all—but you just haven't done the legwork. Not once. Every single topic you touch is just a disorganized mess of half-baked ideas, and you can't make progress like that. All you end up doing is cheapening whatever intelligent points you actually manage to make.

I tried to follow your logic there, but I think you totally lost the plot. You typed out a massive wall of text—and hey, thanks for the effort, really—but the point is: am I not allowed to doubt the official narrative? Am I supposed to just accept whatever is said and written as gospel?

Do you even realize this is a forum...?
A forum has a definition.
One of those definitions is having opposing views... Disagreement is the literal backbone of a forum.
I try to be brutally level-headed.
Look, I support the WWII era stuff, but I also understand there's plenty to criticize within it...

Eric Newman75 said:Oh, I definitely could. You kicked off that whole thread about the Ottoman Empire based on some guy's amateur lectures—and I use the word "lectures" very loosely. Then you spent half the time spouting absolute garbage regarding Turkish and European military history. Sure, you started that discussion on the Battle of Sutjeska with some potential, but then you spiraled into these wild theories that the old regime completely rewrote history, implying we need to scrap everything and start from scratch. And don't even get me started on your take regarding the execution of prisoners. You used that pathetic, over-dramatic rhetoric straight out of a cheap political manifesto: "How shall we confront this national trauma? How can we unite a fractured society?" It was honestly nauseating. If you had to deliver a weather report using that style, it would go something like this: "Heat! How has it overtaken America? Are we, as a society and as individuals, truly prepared for its arrival? Are we responsible? Have we come to terms with our current state? Is it enough to simply wade into the shallows and grab a beer, or do we require more long-term measures? Are we dedicating sufficient attention to the heatwave in our media and public discourse? Is the intellectual elite even engaging with this? Where is the line between mere warmth and a debilitating heatstroke, and will temperatures ever return to their former lows? Can we think with cool heads? How will future generations look back upon this moment, and can such a thing happen to us again?"

Look, it’s not personal. I have nothing against you, you don't bother me, and I’m certainly not telling you to leave. But seriously, ask yourself if the way you communicate is actually appropriate for a scholarly forum. I’m not saying things have to be dry and mind-numbing—not at all—but you just haven't done the legwork. Not once. Every single topic you touch is just a disorganized mess of half-baked ideas, and you can't make progress like that. All you end up doing is cheapening whatever intelligent points you actually manage to make.

I totally hear you, and honestly, thanks for keeping it real.
Of course the threads I start have holes in them and missing pieces.
No doubt about it...
But that’s literally why we’re all here—to hash things out and debate...
Except then lonetrucker4 rolls in and shuts the whole thing down, and boom, end of story.
If a topic doesn't sit right with him, then it basically shouldn't exist at all.

On the flip side, though, how do you not see what's happening...?
Sure, back lonetrucker4 up, he’s a great forum regular, but how can you miss the serious issue with his moderation when it’s actively killing the whole purpose of this place...?!

bluecyclist64 said:Look, I’m throwing out a suggestion for our buddy unknown here—honestly, I’d be more than happy to lend him a hand too.
Jonathan Wright2—what’s your take on this?

Personally, I’m against it.
Why? Simple.
You guys are way too close ideologically, and honestly, that kind of echo chamber is just counterproductive for the group as a whole...

And you, bluecyclist64—look, I know you've got that flexible way of thinking, but if you actually stepped up, I feel like you'd just end up tearing half the forum apart immediately, which doesn't really help anyone in the long run...
You’re an asset to this community just as you are.
Don't change a thing.

Sam Alvarez4 said:Another poll? Seriously? 🤔

It’s a poll, a referendum, a damn plebiscite at this point.
Look, let’s be real—this forum isn't some democratic powerhouse where we all get a vote; it’s run whenever the mods or the admins feel like it. But hey, if we want to actually make this place better and improve the quality of the site, maybe we should try to find some kind of common ground through consensus.

So, you got a candidate in mind?

Eric Newman75 said:Give me a break. Seriously. I was posting in History back when you didn't even know what a computer was, let alone how to get online. I am perfectly aware of the rules—rules that you constantly break by obsessing over absolute nonsense. Try reading an actual book instead of jumping at every single thread where lonetrucker4 is mentioned. You do exactly that, which is easy enough to verify if anyone bothers to check the moderator logs. To you, Egyptian pyramids or Atlantis aren't science or facts; they're just some pub debate about "what if." And the second someone calls you out—or when lonetrucker4 hands you a ban—you start whining and crying like your life is falling apart. Why don't you take all that energy you waste on writing these endless, tear-soaked manifestos and fake polls and spend it studying the stuff you claim to be an expert on? Is that too hard? Yeah, probably. It's much easier to just pick fights for no reason.

Congrats on that...👍

Eric Newman75 said:Give me a break. Seriously. I was posting in History back when you didn't even know what a computer was, let alone how to get online. I am perfectly aware of the rules—rules that you constantly break by obsessing over absolute nonsense. Try reading an actual book instead of jumping at every single thread where lonetrucker4 is mentioned. You do exactly that, which is easy enough to verify if anyone bothers to check the moderator logs. To you, Egyptian pyramids or Atlantis aren't science or facts; they're just some pub debate about "what if." And the second someone calls you out—or when lonetrucker4 hands you a ban—you start whining and crying like your life is falling apart. Why don't you take all that energy you waste on writing these endless, tear-soaked manifestos and fake polls and spend it studying the stuff you claim to be an expert on? Is that too hard? Yeah, probably. It's much easier to just pick fights for no reason.

If I actually asked you to define what those "nonsense" topics were, you wouldn't have an answer.
And honestly, I’m not even expecting one from you...
But please, just try to grasp the fundamental essence of history.
It’s a constant search.
People think it’s some dead, dusty subject, but it isn't—it’s a living, breathing organism.
Try drawing your own conclusions from what you read—compare things, subtract, add, ask questions, be skeptical, or choose to believe...
Just don't lean on history as if it's some unchangeable, dogmatic fact. It's a marathon discipline, not a sprint.

Eric Newman75 said:Give me a break. Seriously. I was posting in History back when you didn't even know what a computer was, let alone how to get online. I am perfectly aware of the rules—rules that you constantly break by obsessing over absolute nonsense. Try reading an actual book instead of jumping at every single thread where lonetrucker4 is mentioned. You do exactly that, which is easy enough to verify if anyone bothers to check the moderator logs. To you, Egyptian pyramids or Atlantis aren't science or facts; they're just some pub debate about "what if." And the second someone calls you out—or when lonetrucker4 hands you a ban—you start whining and crying like your life is falling apart. Why don't you take all that energy you waste on writing these endless, tear-soaked manifestos and fake polls and spend it studying the stuff you claim to be an expert on? Is that too hard? Yeah, probably. It's much easier to just pick fights for no reason.

I can't live without reading...
And as far as lonetrucker4 goes, my intentions are good.
I'm just pointing out when he oversteps... nothing more.
Plenty of guys have left because of it.
Lots of people disagree with me, and that's totally fine.
But plenty of people disagree with lonetrucker4 too...
Isn't it fair and decent to just be honest about it?

Now, this version of history that dances on the edge of science? I consider that a completely different category altogether, but I get that my views don't sit well with you, which is legitimate and I've got nothing to argue against...
You're entitled to your opinion...

Eric Newman75 said:Give me a break. Seriously. I was posting in History back when you didn't even know what a computer was, let alone how to get online. I am perfectly aware of the rules—rules that you constantly break by obsessing over absolute nonsense. Try reading an actual book instead of jumping at every single thread where lonetrucker4 is mentioned. You do exactly that, which is easy enough to verify if anyone bothers to check the moderator logs. To you, Egyptian pyramids or Atlantis aren't science or facts; they're just some pub debate about "what if." And the second someone calls you out—or when lonetrucker4 hands you a ban—you start whining and crying like your life is falling apart. Why don't you take all that energy you waste on writing these endless, tear-soaked manifestos and fake polls and spend it studying the stuff you claim to be an expert on? Is that too hard? Yeah, probably. It's much easier to just pick fights for no reason.

You’ve clearly got a way with words... Why don't you try your hand at poetry or something?
Look, I'm just trying to have a conversation here, but the mods won't tolerate any communication that doesn't perfectly align with their own narrow little preferences.

This isn't some personal vendetta between me and lonetrucker4.
The real issue is the fundamental nature of this online space.
Who actually gets to decide how this platform is used?
Is it me?
Is it him?
Or is it all of us?

We are heading down a seriously bad path.

If I post something that clashes with what everyone else thinks, why should it be deleted? Why should I get slapped with a penalty?
Honestly, if my logic is weak or my argument is shaky, then let the other users tear it apart. That's how it works.
We don't need some self-appointed censor deciding what can be said and how it should be phrased...
It's just nonsense...

We need more freedom... You feel me?!
More people, more activity, more liberty....
Just let people speak their minds...
That’s the whole damn point of a forum.

lonetrucker4 said:So, I was just getting ready to bring up that whole mess with Jonathan Wright2—you know, that nonstop trolling and spamming he’s been pulling lately. Well, looks like one of those obsessive complainers already jumped in.

We’ve also got this whole side show going on—this supposed "welcoming committee" vibe meant to bring in the newbies. Plus, the mods constantly breathing down everyone's necks to stay on track and keep the debate from turning into a total dumpster fire.

zarare just hopped on the forum and dropped a new thread. All that old-school heritage we’re still dragging around today. It’s heavy.Thinking about those ancient traditions that might still be hanging around our neck here in the States. Topic's solid. Some new guy popped up with a post that actually wasn't half bad, then old-timer karlo_r showed his face too—guy rarely ever posts. It’s been a decent, civil debate so far.

Then Jonathan Wright2 jumps in with his usual complaints:

Maybe we should drop that "North American" label if it’s just gonna be used to derail the thread later anyway.

Dennis Campbell4 cuts to the chase:

I'm with you on this. People forget that what they call "the region" originally just meant Ottoman subjects from the Bosphorus to the Drina who stuck around because their faith was actually respected and treated equal to Islam back then. Then those big-shot imperialists in the 19th century decided to start playing these endless geopolitical games against the West...

And there we go, straight into the gutter. One minute we're talking shop, the next it's just pure trolling and off-topic nonsense.

If I wanted to shut that down, I’d just drop a line in blue text—you know, doing my bit as a mod:

Look, everyone knows what the term "North America" means geographically—it’s that triangle tucked between the Adriatic, Tyrrhenian, Aegean, Marmara, and Black Seas. And seriously, quit the mindless panic over some old-school ethnic bogeymen. The peninsula was sitting right there long before anyone ever slapped a name on it, mountains and rivers and all. Also, stop spamming this thread with talk about pre-Slavic tribes and whatever scraps of their culture are left. Cut it out.

Screw you guys (and yeah, I’m getting emotional here, but don't mistake that for feelings—it's just cold, hard logic)! The whole damn world knows exactly what B is.The North American Peninsula... man, what a mess. It’s like trying to untangle a massive knot of old wiring in a basement that's been flooding for decades. Just endless, complicated drama. The North America? Please. Who cares if that name didn't exist two millennia ago? If we’re sitting around debating the Aztecs, are we supposed to just ignore the fact that we're in America? It's the same nonsense everywhere. You can't even mention the US without making it weird. There are endless examples like that.

Dennis Campbell4, who’d just dropped two decent—if heated—takes, immediately loses his mind:

Are you kidding me? This PDF has been getting bypassed ever since you took over moderation.
Ugh, gross. Just nasty.

Jonathan Wright2 thinks he's some kind of scholar, trying to claim "North American" just means "hill" in Turkish and that everything traces back to the "Illyrians." Total nonsense. You can't just slap an old label on a whole region like that, and calling those pre-colonial traditions "Illyrian culture" is just as wrong—it's way too narrow for what we're actually talking about.

Look, I’ve got zero choice here. Better to just wipe the slate clean and pray we can finally get back to some actual, decent discussion without all this noise.

Jonathan Wright2 knows damn well how the mods run this site, yet he still talks trash about them and then acts shocked when he gets banned. And now look, here come two more posts just so someone doesn't whine about getting silenced too.

Anyway, this whole thread started over some debate in the Military History sub-forum regarding my take on anti-vax nonsense. But of course, the professional victims here won't miss a single chance to cry about it.

A concerned citizen... my foot.😁 👍

lonetrucker4 said:So, I was just getting ready to bring up that whole mess with Jonathan Wright2—you know, that nonstop trolling and spamming he’s been pulling lately. Well, looks like one of those obsessive complainers already jumped in.

We’ve also got this whole side show going on—this supposed "welcoming committee" vibe meant to bring in the newbies. Plus, the mods constantly breathing down everyone's necks to stay on track and keep the debate from turning into a total dumpster fire.

zarare just hopped on the forum and dropped a new thread. All that old-school heritage we’re still dragging around today. It’s heavy.Thinking about those ancient traditions that might still be hanging around our neck here in the States. Topic's solid. Some new guy popped up with a post that actually wasn't half bad, then old-timer karlo_r showed his face too—guy rarely ever posts. It’s been a decent, civil debate so far.

Then Jonathan Wright2 jumps in with his usual complaints:

Maybe we should drop that "North American" label if it’s just gonna be used to derail the thread later anyway.

Dennis Campbell4 cuts to the chase:

I'm with you on this. People forget that what they call "the region" originally just meant Ottoman subjects from the Bosphorus to the Drina who stuck around because their faith was actually respected and treated equal to Islam back then. Then those big-shot imperialists in the 19th century decided to start playing these endless geopolitical games against the West...

And there we go, straight into the gutter. One minute we're talking shop, the next it's just pure trolling and off-topic nonsense.

If I wanted to shut that down, I’d just drop a line in blue text—you know, doing my bit as a mod:

Look, everyone knows what the term "North America" means geographically—it’s that triangle tucked between the Adriatic, Tyrrhenian, Aegean, Marmara, and Black Seas. And seriously, quit the mindless panic over some old-school ethnic bogeymen. The peninsula was sitting right there long before anyone ever slapped a name on it, mountains and rivers and all. Also, stop spamming this thread with talk about pre-Slavic tribes and whatever scraps of their culture are left. Cut it out.

Screw you guys (and yeah, I’m getting emotional here, but don't mistake that for feelings—it's just cold, hard logic)! The whole damn world knows exactly what B is.The North American Peninsula... man, what a mess. It’s like trying to untangle a massive knot of old wiring in a basement that's been flooding for decades. Just endless, complicated drama. The North America? Please. Who cares if that name didn't exist two millennia ago? If we’re sitting around debating the Aztecs, are we supposed to just ignore the fact that we're in America? It's the same nonsense everywhere. You can't even mention the US without making it weird. There are endless examples like that.

Dennis Campbell4, who’d just dropped two decent—if heated—takes, immediately loses his mind:

Are you kidding me? This PDF has been getting bypassed ever since you took over moderation.
Ugh, gross. Just nasty.

Jonathan Wright2 thinks he's some kind of scholar, trying to claim "North American" just means "hill" in Turkish and that everything traces back to the "Illyrians." Total nonsense. You can't just slap an old label on a whole region like that, and calling those pre-colonial traditions "Illyrian culture" is just as wrong—it's way too narrow for what we're actually talking about.

Look, I’ve got zero choice here. Better to just wipe the slate clean and pray we can finally get back to some actual, decent discussion without all this noise.

Jonathan Wright2 knows damn well how the mods run this site, yet he still talks trash about them and then acts shocked when he gets banned. And now look, here come two more posts just so someone doesn't whine about getting silenced too.

Anyway, this whole thread started over some debate in the Military History sub-forum regarding my take on anti-vax nonsense. But of course, the professional victims here won't miss a single chance to cry about it.

That's your call.
But if you ask me, you're making a mistake.
Sure, you have the authority as a mod.
But look, expect people like me—actual active contributors who live for this content—to point out when these kinds of calls are totally unnecessary.
Even if there were a couple of off-topic posts, they didn't derail the whole damn thread.
I think you're tripping by going to such extremes, and I'm telling you this because it's actually killing the space for real debate.
Trying to cram everything into these tiny little boxes you think are "appropriate"—it’s just not working for most of us, and honestly, most of the regulars aren't even hanging out on this site anymore anyway.

At the end of the day, I don't think your ultimate goal is just to write posts here, nor am I just lurking here to type out whatever you decide is necessary.

Give us some breathing room... you aren't losing anything. That freedom is what makes a forum great.

lonetrucker4 said:So, I was just getting ready to bring up that whole mess with Jonathan Wright2—you know, that nonstop trolling and spamming he’s been pulling lately. Well, looks like one of those obsessive complainers already jumped in.

We’ve also got this whole side show going on—this supposed "welcoming committee" vibe meant to bring in the newbies. Plus, the mods constantly breathing down everyone's necks to stay on track and keep the debate from turning into a total dumpster fire.

zarare just hopped on the forum and dropped a new thread. All that old-school heritage we’re still dragging around today. It’s heavy.Thinking about those ancient traditions that might still be hanging around our neck here in the States. Topic's solid. Some new guy popped up with a post that actually wasn't half bad, then old-timer karlo_r showed his face too—guy rarely ever posts. It’s been a decent, civil debate so far.

Then Jonathan Wright2 jumps in with his usual complaints:

Maybe we should drop that "North American" label if it’s just gonna be used to derail the thread later anyway.

Dennis Campbell4 cuts to the chase:

I'm with you on this. People forget that what they call "the region" originally just meant Ottoman subjects from the Bosphorus to the Drina who stuck around because their faith was actually respected and treated equal to Islam back then. Then those big-shot imperialists in the 19th century decided to start playing these endless geopolitical games against the West...

And there we go, straight into the gutter. One minute we're talking shop, the next it's just pure trolling and off-topic nonsense.

If I wanted to shut that down, I’d just drop a line in blue text—you know, doing my bit as a mod:

Look, everyone knows what the term "North America" means geographically—it’s that triangle tucked between the Adriatic, Tyrrhenian, Aegean, Marmara, and Black Seas. And seriously, quit the mindless panic over some old-school ethnic bogeymen. The peninsula was sitting right there long before anyone ever slapped a name on it, mountains and rivers and all. Also, stop spamming this thread with talk about pre-Slavic tribes and whatever scraps of their culture are left. Cut it out.

Screw you guys (and yeah, I’m getting emotional here, but don't mistake that for feelings—it's just cold, hard logic)! The whole damn world knows exactly what B is.The North American Peninsula... man, what a mess. It’s like trying to untangle a massive knot of old wiring in a basement that's been flooding for decades. Just endless, complicated drama. The North America? Please. Who cares if that name didn't exist two millennia ago? If we’re sitting around debating the Aztecs, are we supposed to just ignore the fact that we're in America? It's the same nonsense everywhere. You can't even mention the US without making it weird. There are endless examples like that.

Dennis Campbell4, who’d just dropped two decent—if heated—takes, immediately loses his mind:

Are you kidding me? This PDF has been getting bypassed ever since you took over moderation.
Ugh, gross. Just nasty.

Jonathan Wright2 thinks he's some kind of scholar, trying to claim "North American" just means "hill" in Turkish and that everything traces back to the "Illyrians." Total nonsense. You can't just slap an old label on a whole region like that, and calling those pre-colonial traditions "Illyrian culture" is just as wrong—it's way too narrow for what we're actually talking about.

Look, I’ve got zero choice here. Better to just wipe the slate clean and pray we can finally get back to some actual, decent discussion without all this noise.

Jonathan Wright2 knows damn well how the mods run this site, yet he still talks trash about them and then acts shocked when he gets banned. And now look, here come two more posts just so someone doesn't whine about getting silenced too.

Anyway, this whole thread started over some debate in the Military History sub-forum regarding my take on anti-vax nonsense. But of course, the professional victims here won't miss a single chance to cry about it.

And you? You're just cranking out these mindless sanctions and explanations in the feedback section. There is plenty of evidence showing that you're basically running this place like a dictator, and frankly, it looks like you're just doing it to stroke your own ego.
I feel obligated to warn you: this isn't good for the community.
You're being way too harsh, lonetrucker4... seriously. You're snapping at every single comma and period.
Try to take it easy. Keep things professional—nobody's questioning that—but just... chill.
Don't stomp all over everyone and don't start banning people left and right.
You're sucking the life out of this forum.
I'm saying it once, and I'll keep saying it.

Proposal to fix the quality of the History subforum.

Right now, the only person actually moderating the History section is Zoran Oštrić.
Out of the three official moderators listed, he’s basically the only one doing any actual work.

I’m suggesting that Administration steps in and implements a new management model for the History subforum (including its two sub-sections) by appointing two interim co-moderators. This would create some much-needed balance and finally take the massive weight off Zoran Oštrić's shoulders—honestly, his constant grind is starting to wear down the whole system here at the forum.

These interim co-mods could be hand-picked by Administration, or better yet, the History community itself could vote them in through an open application process and a poll.

The History section absolutely needs a balanced moderation team.
Having just one moderator isn't enough—especially not someone who tends to run things like a private club.

Please, seriously, give this proposal some thought.

Either take a look at this topic like

Some guy started this thread thinking it was just going to be some chill, low-stakes debate—nothing harmful, just people talking...
But then lonetrucker4 swooped in... He shut everything down, started throwing threats around, handed out penalties, and locked the whole thing up...

The issue isn't even really about why the thread got locked—it’s about this systemic obsession where lonetrucker4 is constantly monitoring, measuring, and bending everything to his own specific whims until he goes way too far...
He’s overreaching, and that’s what I’m trying to point out here.
When you go that overboard, you just kill anyone's desire to actually participate.
And honestly? That is the last thing this forum needs.
It’s definitely not in the best interest of this site for lonetrucker4 to be the only one calling the shots.
We’re supposed to be a community here, all of us together.

Why the extreme behavior? Why the constant threats? Why the suppression?
To me, it feels like he’s just using this platform to feed his own ego, and frankly, it’s pretty depressing to watch.
And I'll say it again... This kind of thing completely undermines the value of this entire American forum.

The admins really need to figure out how to actually keep users coming back to the site...
That should be the strategic priority for this platform.

Look, I wouldn't even be typing this if lonetrucker4 hadn't gone after me and my buddies with more sanctions again. The reason?
There isn't one, other than whatever is going on in his head.