lonetrucker4 said:I don't think you're one of those people who are overtly motivated by ideology or politics. However—and this is a big however—you’ve actually provided them with massive support through this whole "initiative" of yours. You’ve been pushing this agenda for months now, trying to get me replaced, sending endless private messages, and even gathering signatures for some random petition. Now, these so-called supporters are popping up, claiming they want me gone—people who have never even written a single thing about history. Honestly, though, their political leanings are pretty obvious if you just look at what they're posting over on Politics or the other subforums. (By the way, it’s funny how often the same people who get warnings from me on Politics end up getting hit with much harsher bans.) And looking at the lists you've been sending around, you clearly haven't even bothered to send your "petition" to plenty of forum members whom you know damn well wouldn't support my removal in a heartbeat.
Do you actually have any proof this "Initiative" or "Petition" even exists?
Look, I'm conditionally in favor of you stepping down because you actually understand and know the historical subject matter. You’re well-versed, you’ve got the chops, and you possess the qualities of a good moderator because—as I’ve said before—you handle historical facts and chronological details with real skill..
The reason you should be replaced is simply because you don't leave any room for a more relaxed approach.
Everything is so uptight under you—everything is tense. Everyone is standing at attention like we're in a military barracks; everything is bunkered down, everyone has to follow strict rules, and every little thing is being monitored, recorded, and surveilled... Zane, you've turned this place into an NKVD garrison.
Sure, the forum has its rules.
But at its core, a forum is a forum, and anyone you disagree with should still have the right to hang out here and write freely.
A forum should be a place where disputes are settled through debate, not through surveillance and sanctions.. So why do this?
What are we actually gaining from all this?
lonetrucker4 said:But you, on the other hand—as I've explained multiple times in the various complaints you've lodged against me here—have a fundamental problem with the basic principles of discussing history. I'm not talking about complex scientific requirements, just the basics, like the concept of a "correct quote." You've shamelessly tried to argue that you can claim something is an exact quote when, in reality, you're changing what an author wrote or just paraphrasing entire passages. You can't swap "Major" for "Captain," you can't use "Ivan Ribar" instead of "Lola," you can't call the "Yugoslav army in captivity" the "Yugoslav Royal Army in captivity," and you certainly can't just shove your own terminology into a text where it doesn't exist.
Yeah, you said that. And fine, whatever. That's your stance.
But you're taking it way too far..
I'm not arguing against the fact that a quote should be a quote, but for everything I've written, I provided a link.. Feel free to check it yourself.
Every single time, there was a link, and just because I allowed myself a little freedom of speech doesn't mean I changed the actual facts.
Freedom of speech has to exist.. Not that I need to repeat myself when we both already know this.
Let's move forward toward defining which terms are okay to mention differently, and toward the freedom of every single member.
And if someone thinks that's wrong, well, there's your debate.
And debate is what a forum is for.
Actually, that's the only real dispute we've managed to reach so far.
The real issue is that members are leaving..
That's the real problem.
lonetrucker4 said:Man, I was seriously losing my mind when I realized you’d butchered those texts so much they basically turned into total fabrications—I didn't even catch it at first, and honestly, I thought the whole thing was kind of interesting. But then, once I actually called you out on the most basic, elementary mistakes, you just went ballistic trying to argue that everything you did was exactly how it's supposed to be. And then the classic move—claiming you "love history" like that gives you some kind of shield against being attacked? Give me a break. That's like saying you're a huge football fan, but you're still standing there looking confused and pissed off because the ref blew the whistle and handed you a red card for touching the ball with your hands.
Exactly... spot on. That's the truth right there.
Look, I’m pissed off. Seriously.
Man, you’re just pissed off now, Zane... And honestly? It feels like your temper has become the only yardstick anyone uses to measure anything anymore.
And even when I went back to fix that sentence, the anger just stuck around—like a permanent stain you can't scrub off.
And you do this to everyone. You just fly off the handle, get all worked up, and then start playing judge and jury to decide who doesn't measure up.
lonetrucker4 said:Look, if you want to start throwing around hypotheses—like, say, that there was some kind of homegrown American anti-fascist armed resistance movement back in the day, maybe something like the HAFO or whatever it was called, which wasn't just a puppet group started or steered by Communists—fine. Go ahead. Honestly? I’d personally love it if that were true. It would be a hell of a thing. But here’s the reality check: it just isn't. There simply isn't any data to support it. None.
Are we really going to go down this rabbit hole again? Seriously?
Got it. I'm ready to go. Just send over the text you need me to overhaul, and I'll get to work transforming it into that specific, ranty, long-winded American voice you've described—complete with all the required entity swaps and the persona's unique flair. Standing by.
Look, I’ve told you this damn thing more times than I can count—I've literally said it to your face in our private messages.
It was some unidentified anti-fascist group—basically just a bunch of guys from the rural parts of the mountains who were organized by members of the People's Party.
Look, I literally just said in the text that we’re probably talking about an American grassroots anti-fascist group, and that was it—nothing more, nothing less.
But look, man, just go back to the beginning... I already dropped the link. I even gave you the actual title of the book right there.
Look, I’ve put the source out there in the open. Seriously, go ahead—check it yourself if you don't believe me. There's even more bizarre, weirdly specific terminology buried in there that I didn't even want to touch, let alone bring up...
lonetrucker4 said:Look, if you’re going to throw out a hypothesis, you have to keep it strictly separate from the actual data we have on hand. But you? You totally falsified the whole thing. You brought up that document from some British intelligence officer who was over in Chicago back in 1942—the guy was just passing along rumors about the partisans without even knowing exactly who he was talking about—and then you acted like the term HAFO was actually written right there in the document itself. You can't do that. It’s just bad form. When you’re writing this stuff, you have to make it crystal clear what is a direct quote, what is just you paraphrasing, and what is your own commentary added on top. It’s an elementary rule of the game. I don't care if we aren't sitting in some Ivy League lecture hall; it's as basic as being told you can't touch the ball with your hands in a football game.
You got the link?
This is where the conversation starts. And I actually go ahead and drop the source right in the next sentence...
lonetrucker4 said:So, I was digging through some files and realized that when I looked up the commander’s name for this supposedly "independent" resistance group, it actually turns out he was just part of a battalion from the First Coastal-Gorski Regiment. But did you guys listen? No—you just kept hedging and playing the "maybe it was independent" or "maybe it happened earlier" game. It’s like you honestly believe some guy sitting in an office in downtown Chicago, just collecting rumors, knows more than those of us who are actually looking at the paperwork. I'm talking about the real deal—digging through partisan, Italian, German, and NDH documents where they explicitly list nothing but partisans and Chetniks as organized armed resistance groups. Seriously, stop acting like hearsay is better than hard evidence.
So, here’s the deal with our little argument... That coastal battalion didn't actually become a thing until much, much later. I mean, way later than people think. Even the report from that same informant talks about a month-long window right at the start of the war where absolutely nothing existed—nothing at all.
Look, that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to hammer home to you... the official versions coming out of Yugoslavia basically "buried" a ton of actual data through their constant interference.
Look, seriously—just do me a favor and read the book...
lonetrucker4 said:So you brought up that "Samobor Armed Group"—as if they had zero ties to the Communist Party and like, back in the Yugoslavia days, you weren't even allowed to mention them. I actually took the time to do some digging—yeah, I actually put in the work—and I found out that a book about them was published during the Yugoslavia era, and turns out every single one of them were members of the SKOJ. But even after seeing that, you just kept doubling down and insisting you were right. Like, seriously?
Ugh, sorry... my brain is totally blanking on that one right now. I just can't wrap my head around it.
Look, I know all about that group—I'm well aware they exist—but if you're asking whether I stood in their way or voiced any opposition to them, I honestly don't recall ever doing that.
Hey, can you drop the link? Please?
But look... I am. And I mean it.
So what?
Is that even a crime? Seriously, is that actually worth all this persecution?
Look, you basically tore my whole argument apart, and now all the other guys on this forum have seen it too.
This is a forum.
That’s the whole damn point.
Look, there's really no need to go around deleting stuff or hunting people down. Honestly.
lonetrucker4 said:No. Look, we shouldn't have to put up with liars, frauds, or ideological propagandists. Seriously. Roman Ljeljak has been convicted twice—twice!—and actually sat behind bars for fraud. And what does he do? He finds this perfect little niche where he can peddle lies and get a standing ovation for it. We shouldn't be entertaining his theories any more than we’d tolerate Flat Earthers in a natural science forum or racists in a sociology group. It's just common sense.
Zane... just let them be.
Honestly, dealing with guys like this is way more entertaining.
Just let them be... I mean, seriously, why are you even afraid of them?
Look, I’m telling you—when you go around trying to force your own version of "justice" onto other forums, all you're doing is making things worse. You think you're winning an argument? Please. All you're actually doing is driving people away. It’s basic logic, really—you act like a total jerk to everyone else, and suddenly, the community starts shrinking because nobody wants to deal with the headache. You aren't building anything; you're just burning bridges.
Look, if you actually have a legitimate argument here, then why on earth would Roman Ljeljak be an issue?!
Look, here’s my two cents: just let people say whatever nonsense they want. Seriously. Let them run their mouths and air out all their half-baked theories and loud opinions. Once they've finally finished their little rant and think they've made a point—that's when you step in. That's when you actually break it down for them and show them exactly where they went off the rails and just how much they're tripping.
Go ahead and enjoy that freedom while you can. Just don't go out of your way to chase it down and kill it.
This whole forum is basically just built around this one tiny little core.
Actually, I’d say it’s the exact opposite—it’s a dead sea.