Posts by Sandra Gonzalez3

Megan Hernandez2 said:Nobody is denying Canadians their right to a nationality. As far as I'm concerned, call yourselves whatever you want. We are simply rejecting the claim of a historical link to the medieval group known as the Canadians.

Of course they’re denying it! Everyone who insists on using religion as the only label is doing just that—exactly like those people you mentioned above who stubbornly call Americans "Catholics" instead of what they actually are. This isn't some new thing invented yesterday on this forum either. All this calculated denialism has a very specific purpose and goal, something we saw firsthand during the last war. It's not easy to hide or mask blatant chauvinism and pure hatred...

Here's an example:

amberdriver17 said:It’s honestly hilarious—it's like if the white conquerors of the US suddenly started calling themselves Native Americans after wiping them out. That's basically what's happening here: the descendants of the people who wiped out the Canadians are now claiming to be Canadians. It's a quasi-state with a quasi-nation...

amberdriver17 said:
... unless they take it as proof that they slaughtered the last Canadians and Canadians and Grandfather.😉

Every single one of them thinks they're a historian. 🤣

This thread has turned into a total circus, whatever. 👋

Edit:

John Davis12 said:No sane American is ever going to call themselves a Canadian, especially since that's become strictly a Muslim identity now.
Maybe some guy way up north in Canada wants to, but anyone actually calling themselves that is probably just in a mixed marriage.
Look, it's not like our national or religious identity bothers us, but obviously, my sense of pride kicks in when someone tries to screw me over like this!😁

😍

restlessfox29 said:Everything is fine, let's not get into an argument over nothing... I realized after I hit send that I forgot to include the link or even explain how the whole thing works. Honestly, once I actually read my own post back, I realized how blunt it came across, but hey, it didn't occur to me to go back and edit it 🤷
Anyway... everything is good 😳
...

Dude, this isn't even a fight. It's just mods having a disagreement. One guy thinks one thing, the other thinks another, and that's it. 🙂

When things actually get ugly, it happens behind closed doors where nobody sees it, and honestly? It’s pretty nasty stuff to read. 😁

hollowtrucker77 said:I certainly hope not, because honestly, I don't think those points were even relevant to the thread, let alone particularly useful for anything else either.

I disagree. Look, I’m not saying I wouldn't have handed out a ban at first glance either, but once it became obvious the woman was right—and she basically exposed a troll who was abusing such a sensitive topic—I’d take that ban back. Especially since she posted again immediately after getting banned just to clarify what she meant in the original post. Basically, within two posts, it was crystal clear to everyone on the thread that we were dealing with a troll.

Bottom line: I'll always side with the person calling out a troll who shows up to mess with people on a thread about sexual assault. In my opinion, the person exposing them didn't deserve the ban here.

But hey, that's just my take. Nothing else to add.

Later.

rustydrifter10 said:Look, the post was flagged and taken down. But let's be real: sometimes we just can't tell if someone is making things up on the fly or not. We can strongly suspect a story is fabricated, but usually, suspicion alone isn't enough to hand out a sanction. If a user had provided a link to another one of the author's posts proving this whole situation was made up, we would've handled it completely differently. Moderators don't go digging through a user's entire posting history just to fact-check every single claim unless it's one of those really extreme cases.

No, it wasn't that; it was because of that "complete idiot" comment. I'll admit, at first glance, I wasn't even sure if she was targeting the author or someone else, but I eventually decided it was an insult and acted accordingly. Honestly, looking at it again, I'm having second thoughts 🙈, so I think I'm going to go ahead and rescind that warning. My apologies if I overstepped there.

So now that everything's been double-checked and we know what's actually true... are they gonna strip that user of those 35 points he got right off the bat for asking "Was that fun for you?"... seriously...

John Davis12 said:

They never actually felt like "Canadians" were their own thing. Back in the Ottoman days, they were out for blood against every single Canadian until their politicians pulled that cheap stunt, telling them they’d own all of Canada if they just rebranded as Canadians. A total scam.

This is the truth right here.

They wouldn't, they'd just be Canadian.

Canadian or Canadian, whatever.

"Canadian identity" is just sugarcoating. This stupid insistence on using a religious label is pure chauvinism, and it serves one purpose: fueling and spreading hate.

First off, don't steal my "sugarcoating" line.😁
Before the war, they were proud of being religiously defined.
And frankly, I couldn't care less.
But you can call them Muslims. Always.😁

Look, it's totally your right and nobody's stopping you, but then you gotta be ready to call it what it actually is. 👍

Sean Cooper65 said:It is true. On the last census, about 99% of Canadian Muslims identified their nationality as Muslim.

There was an option for "Canadian" on that census, and only a few hundred people chose it.

So, anyone calling Canadian Muslims "Canadians" is just misrepresenting the facts.

I call them Canadian Muslims. They’ve never really embraced a "Canadian" identity. Back in the Ottoman era, any Canadian faced persecution until politicians told them they could claim all of Canada if they just adopted the Canadian label. It was a cheap tactic.

There is no way I am calling them Canadians.

Besides, they have never publicly identified as Canadians, and there is no verified record of them doing so.

That’s a straight-up lie.

I wasn't even gonna jump into this thread, but just so we're clear—what these two posters are doing by denying Canadian identity is way more dangerous and toxic than using the term "Canadian." Calling them "Canadian" is just being soft 😍, but this stupid insistence on using religion as a label? That's pure chauvinism. It's clearly designed to fuel and spread hate...

The guy was just looking for confirmation on what she already said in another thread—she literally admitted she had a good time. I wouldn't even give her a $35 gift card...

Patrick Miller3 said:As I recall, this was settled by the site rules ages ago.
You can put someone else's quote in your signature, unless the person who said it wants you to stop. If they don't like it, the user has to scrub it, or the mods will just step in and do it themselves.

Not even close. As far as I know, there aren't even any rules about this on the board. Right now, anyone can slap anyone else's quote in their signature without asking permission... nothing stops them.

Nicholas King said:We got the backstory!!! 👋 But honestly, nobody around here belongs to the old guard anymore... just us fossils...

What kind of "shutting me up" are you even talking about? And what’s this "special treatment" nonsense you're dreaming up? I don't recall ever dropping a post like yours in the administration questions section... that's exactly why I'm asking if this is how it works. I expect everyone to be treated the same...

Of course there's an angle here, just like there's an angle with you showing up to this thread (I see other people on here noticing it too), and Susan Price30 noticed it as well...

I’m not dreaming about anything, man. The way you and a few other bored mods act—suddenly acting like you just "discovered" the PZK—it’s pretty obvious what's going on. You're clearly obsessed with silencing the moderators and keeping that special treatment all to yourselves on the PZK...

And seriously, why are you even asking useless questions when the answer is already obvious?...

You really asking if it works like that...? You still haven't figured out it doesn't? My post got nuked, yet bluecyclist64's trolling garbage is still sitting right there...

What kind of punishment are we talking about here? My head on a silver platter, maybe?... 😛

Susan Price30 said:Maybe you actually owe that guy an apology... since you're out here disrespecting him and acting like a clown when—for once—you're clearly dead wrong.🙂😁

I don't feel bad, and I have zero intention of apologizing to bluecyclist64... he didn't do anything to deserve an apology.

I'm not even listening to his excuses until he owns up to that registration bullshit. Not one word until then...

Christian Taylor3 said:I don't give a damn about the context. I think we’re all on the same page here—including rustydrifter10 and Daniel Ward87—that this kind of language has no place coming from a moderator. Especially not on the PZK when they're supposed to be handling complaints. That Anderlonov quote is still hitting home...Don't get cocky, smug, or cynical when you're handling complaints on the PZK. No "I'm the god-mod" attitude allowed. If you can't manage to be actually friendly, then just stay neutral and strictly business... otherwise, expect a ban. Honestly, though, I think it’d be pretty hilarious watching people lose their minds when the appeals team actually treats them with some damn decency...."

@observer's

If the admins can stick to their own rules, why is it such a big deal for you? Just adapt already, man... 🙂

Christian Taylor3, it’s not even an issue. Honestly, I think I’m plenty polite to the folks who actually come here to vent without some shady agenda. But I am NOT going to bend over backward or play fake and nice with malicious trolls like bluecyclist64—at least not until their little scams and setups actually get them sanctioned. Until then, I’m gonna call it like I see it, even if it means getting my posts deleted, getting flagged, or even getting kicked off the mod team entirely if that's what it takes.

Susan Price30 said:sorry for jumping in...

Man, I’m not even surprised you’re popping in here. 🤣

Maybe you’ve got some kind of grudge because I gave you an "unfair" penalty like a hundred years ago or something. 🤔

Just because you saw one single instance doesn't mean you know what's actually going on at PZK. Drawing conclusions based on one lone example is incredibly shallow... but hey, I shouldn't be surprised.

As for everything else, just read what I wrote to Nicholas King above. It applies to you too.

Nicholas King said:I’m asking again: what’s the criteria here? Why was an observer allowed to do that when no other user could—or was there someone else?

Of course it’s allowed, look at the damn evidence right there. You’re just spinning your wheels on stuff you don't even understand, guessing and throwing shade without having any clue about why he handled the topic that way... but sure, go ahead and act like you know... just like he does.

Why are you looking for special treatment on the PZK compared to the sub-forum mods for yourself (or bluecyclist64)?

What, you want to shut everyone up on the PZK and silence the mods who are being baselessly called out and accused? You want this place to become a stage where only you "crusaders for forum justice" and your lawyer buddies get a microphone?

Not happening if you ask me. I’ll take a ban if that’s what it takes... and I seriously hope the admins don't cave to this latest wave of attacks from these self-righteous "justice seekers."

bluecyclist64 said:... first of all, he's just an observer...

Yeah, yeah, yeah... and before that, nobody was dealing with some paranoid delusion where you think moderators aren't actually moderating this subforum, or that others are just lurking, waiting to see when you'll finally get banned.

You're taking this way too personally. You don't matter, man. Nobody's following you, and nobody's paying you any special attention. You got banned because you deserved it. There’s zero reason to troll the PZK with fake, baseless accusations—because if that wasn't paranoia, then it's definitely trolling.

And look, we all know you've been having "issues" with me for a while now, and now it looks like it's moved on to Strilet. But you're gonna have to wait for a better opportunity to talk trash, because this one is pretty much useless.

Good luck finding that better opportunity. 👋

Since we’re talking about street fights... am I the only one seeing that the Judo guy was actually the first one to "clinch up" on his opponent?

I dropped $35 on him for the post right before the one you guys claim "started the brawl," and I didn't even realize the comments below were already getting nuked by my buddy.

If you really wanna get technical, that post is the one that actually kicked everything off (since apparently that matters so much)...

Nicholas King said:You’re moving too fast with your arguments—you’ve actually managed to trip yourself up into a complete contradiction.

The hypothetical ban on certain dialects would be the direct result of exactly what you’re advocating for—the (un)understandability of a language to a larger group of forum users. If we say Mexican is allowed because it’s "understandable," then by that same logic, someone could demand a ban on obscure regional dialects because they're too confusing—and then we're all stuck in a loop going nowhere.

This whole debate about which languages should or shouldn't be permitted on the forum isn't nearly as simple as some of the posts in this thread are making it out to be—and no, this isn't about whether or not someone hates Mexicans. Asking "why would Canadians be considered less valuable than Mexicans?" isn't trolling or being pedantic. The idea that "Canadian should only be used in threads about Canada, while Mexican/English is allowed everywhere" is inherently inconsistent, so it can't really function as a legitimate "rule."

Using "(un)understandability" as a metric is a fundamentally flawed criterion. We have to consider everything from the fact that this forum is frequently filled with posts in "American" that are completely unintelligible, to the reality that if a post is only understood by a handful of people, that’s nobody's business but the author's. Who exactly is going to judge how many people can grasp a post written in Canadian, Czech, Swahili, or whatever else? And where exactly is the line that makes a language "unacceptable"?

The only logical boundary here is whether or not the administration can actually understand a post, purely for the sake of moderation.

That question is just plain stupid, so I didn't even bother responding. Obviously, we aren't talking about people being more or less valuable or anything like that... It's just about whether American languages are easy to understand or not.

I'm not deleting English—within reason, obviously—but I’d wipe Chinese or Arabic right off the map. Doesn't mean I think Englishmen are any better than Chinese or Arab people... just how I feel.

Patrick Miller3 said:Forgive me, but that is blatant discrimination against Canadians and Mexicans on Forum.hr—and this isn't some attempt at trolling (as Ryan Vaughn7 puts it), it's just a fact.

Should everyone from the former America—Mexicans, Mexicans, Canadians, Canadians, Mexicans—be expected to adapt to official American English as much as possible!?

On the BUG forum, there’s been a Mexican user since the beginning who actually writes in American English better than most of us. Through his expertise in the informatics section, he eventually became a moderator—but he didn't force his native tongue; rather, he adapted out of respect for the country where he created his profile.

So why do Mexicans insist on writing in pure Mexican?

That is the fundamental question.

I have no clue, just start a thread over in the US Politics section and ask them...

Maybe people just don't know American English, or maybe they're just too lazy... personally, I wouldn't even bother re-reading my own posts two or three times just to make sure every single word was written in perfect English.

I'm telling you... you guys are wasting your breath with this question. Total waste of time...

melloworca6 said:Look, I apologize for jumping into this thread late, but it’s pretty much a fact that way more people understand Mexican than Canadian.

That's basically why we allow Mexican, Mexican, and Canadian on here.

The other reason is just pure numbers. There are way more users who speak those languages compared to the folks using Canadian or Mexican in their daily lives... plain and simple.

brightpuma said:Man, you just say the score is tied for both of them and call it a day. 🤷
At the end of the day, that's basically how it works anyway...

Then what's even the point of having another tiebreaker card?

Larry Walker24 said:Boss, I totally get Canadian! 😉

The real question is, do the rest of you guys on the forum actually understand Canadian? 🙂

And hey, let them complain if they don't get it—we can just ask our neighbors to translate their posts for them. 😁

Otherwise, I only allow that in the thread about Canada (which isn't even active) under the assumption that maybe some Canadian visitor might drop by and isn't exactly "fluent" in the local language, so they can't express themselves "perfectly" in American English like they could in Canadian.

We should be welcoming and hospitable if we can actually make sense of what they're saying. 🙂

Larry Walker24 said:Is this even allowed under the forum rules?

Technically, no, but the neighbors get a pass from me sometimes when they go off like this... just like I let Mexicans, Albanians, or that Greek guy slide when they mess up words or trash the grammar... or when Mexicans write in Mexican, or even those Mexicans with their weird new accent marks... hell, even you when you ask "is that allowed," someone might claim you're writing in Mexican and demand a ban... so why am I letting it happen? 😉

Don't you at least understand a bit of Canadian?

Can't make sense of them or what...?

We could always just ask them to stick to American English if it's such a disaster. 🤷

You gonna handle it, or should I?

Susan Price30 said:Don't get ahead of yourself, as some might say 🙂 unless biased moderation on the (only) subforum I use counts as that. If you messed up and got called out (regarding the moderation of that thread), it's obvious, right? So I don't see why you're so obsessed with being right... and I already gave examples and reasons for my Zelda, so I don't know what else I should add to make it clear what I'm talking about.

It’s biased according to you—which has already proven to be neither valid nor backed by any actual evidence. Look, Susan Price30, I wasn't "corrected" regarding the moderation of that thread; one user got a permanent ban because of their entire history on this forum. The only thing that's obvious is that you (very often) see things that have absolutely nothing to do with reality or the actual facts. Yeah, of course I'm right, and of course you have nothing to add when you haven't even brought up anything concrete since this thread started that there could actually be "something" added to.

Fine, here's your chance to prove it. Go ahead and post the threads where I did that. Don't run away now—just put my posts from the thread right here—deleted or not.

I'd love to, right after you post proof of you "targeting" my posts, along with evidence for all those other accusations you've thrown out here. 🙂

Last time, during the Zelda about my response getting flagged for reacting to a troll you didn't ban, you started with the sarcasm, telling lies, asking if I was sure it wasn't just in my head, etc. (that's what I meant by your rude attitude). Something similar is happening now.

Honestly, I feel more embarrassed having to tell a lady twice that she's spreading falsehoods, but I have no choice. It isn't true that I started my response the way you claim. You posted a link—check it—and for once, just tell the truth. Do you even feel an ounce of shame for what you're doing? 😕

Besides, I don't get why I would even come here and write "lies."

That question "puzzles" me too, but you're the only one who knows the answer. Honestly, after all this, I doubt you have even a shred of dignity left to actually share your reasons with us.

Anyway, seriously, goodbye... at least until your next "targeting" spree. 👋

Susan Price30 said:that’s just wrong. back on that Zelda appeal thread when I complained about you banning me using basically the same logic—claiming biased and selective deleting/banning—you were just being rude, aggressive, and looking for a fight from the jump. If anyone wants proof of how you act whenever someone calls you out, they can just check that thread. So, sorry, but you're dead wrong, and this whole thing where you insist you're right when you clearly aren't... it leads nowhere...

Honor Grace, you're lying again. 🙂

Basically, we're seeing a repeat of what happened with that appeal two months ago—you complain, get a decent response, don't like the answer, so you start spinning lies and making up nonsense connections that don't exist... then you get the exact response those fabrications deserve, and then you whine about bias and lack of objectivity, etc., etc. 🤷

And no, my "insisting" isn't being stubborn, it's exposing your lies.

Susan Price30 said:you're being rude again. I'm not being malicious, actually quite the opposite—when I see injustice and a group attack by malicious trolls (like in that other thread) against a perfectly decent and okay user, I react instinctively. That's why I'm filing this appeal.

Oh sure, you *are* being malicious by trying to imply you're treated differently than other users (the post filtering 🙄), which is straight-up false. It's up to the mods to figure out who's an actual malicious troll and who's just being "civilly" sarcastic to bait people. Same goes for this:

filtering in the sense that you deleted my harmless off-topic posts (which isn't a big deal), but decided to leave some other trolling or super off-topic stuff up for everyone to see. That's what I'm talking about.

The admins have the final say, and that's exactly what happened.

Clearly, you've got some personal "issues" with me... but whatever, go ahead, I can do this all day...🙂

what can I even say to this? no comment. 🤦
Yeah, the reasoning is top-tier. Terrifying stuff... which totally explains why you left up those posts attacking B. Dad (unless you just didn't ban the ones where he was getting trashed, which Uncle Strile had to fix later)

Subjective and biased, just like I already said...

Yeah, so?

What's the problem?

Does it bother you that I called your precious Queen an old lady? Or that I mentioned who she's waving at or how long she stands out in the rain? Yeah, truly horrific—mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, I'm throwing ashes over my head, how dare I even say it. 😢

Yeah, exactly, I didn't want to delete or ban everything you wanted scrubbed away, because it’s obvious that you and B. Dad, with your fanboy and Anglophile posts, provoked reactions from users who simply weren't going to shut up about the bullshit claims you were making.

Now, you can call that biased or subjective if you want, but those users definitely have my respect just because they reacted to provocative nonsense wrapped up in "polite" posts (especially B. Dad's posts).

That's the way I do it!

☕