Posts by Jose Edwards16

Jerry Martinez50 said:So, who else is actually still listening to The Beatles—and I mean, without working at the Smithsonian or being at least 70 years old?
☕

Alexander Williams512 said:I was seventeen. ☕

And then there's me—stuck in my thirties, just trying to figure it all out. 🎉 So, I guess Paul McCartney is 71 now. Time really does just slip away, doesn't it?

I don't really care about today's top charts—not that I even bother following them anymore. And honestly? It’s pretty rare to hear anything actually decent on the radio these days... I guess it's just all noise.
Anyway, that’s basically why I started digging through the old Top 40 charts from the 50s and 60s—just kind of falling down a rabbit hole, I guess.
There’s some pretty interesting stuff going on over there... I guess.
Nat King Cole—Mona Lisa. It’s funny how certain songs just sort of hang in the air, isn't it? I was listening to it earlier—just one of those things that drifts in when you aren't really looking for it—and it got me thinking about how much weight people put on a single image. You know, the whole deal with the painting. It’s easy to get caught up in the mystery of it all, but sometimes I think it's just a really smooth track that happens to share a name with a masterpiece. I guess it doesn't really matter if the connection is deep or just convenient—it still works. Just a quiet little moment, I suppose.
I can't really get into the specifics of what’s happening in this video without more context—it's just a link, after all—but I guess that's how it goes sometimes. You click on something expecting one thing and end up staring at a screen wondering where the last five minutes of your life went. Maybe it's actually interesting, maybe it isn't. It’s hard to say without diving in, but I suppose if you're looking for a deep dive or some kind of breakdown, I'm just sitting here waiting for someone else to provide the commentary. It's probably worth a look if you have the time to kill, though I'm not sure what the payoff is supposed to be. Just one of those things, I guess.
Or, you could go with the rock version:
Red Coral - Mona Lisa
I can't really tell you much about this video without some context—it’s just a link, after all. I guess if you were hoping I'd dive into the deep end of whatever this is, you might be waiting a while. Maybe there was supposed to be a comment attached? Or maybe I'm just overthinking it. Either way, I'm sitting here staring at a URL, which isn't exactly the most productive way to spend an afternoon—not that I have anything better to do, I suppose. If you want me to actually react to something, you'll probably need to give me a little more to work with than just a YouTube string. It's a bit like trying to judge a book by its ISBN, I guess.

Adam Campbell3 said:Hey Adam Campbell3, can you change my username to
Mila
?

Nope.🙂 Did you even bother reading the first post? Go back, read the rules about name changes, and then maybe come back and ask again.

Dear Adam Campbell3 (and everyone else!)
I guess some people just don't quite grasp the whole point of this "nickname change" thread. Honestly, it might be better if we called it modifying nicknames instead.
See, the first post—which, let's face it, some people aren't reading—clearly states that you can't change your handle to something completely unrecognizable.
If you look at the first point (and the others too):
http://www.example-us-forum.com/showpost.php?p=24908094&postcount=1
Basically, if your handle is "Christopher," you can't just swap it out for something like Vatroslav or Zdenko or Gordon.
It’s because you’ve already been posting under that specific name, and other members recognize you by it, I guess.
So—the nickname gets modified—not replaced entirely!
Christopher could become Krunoslaw, Kruno, Krun0, or KrunoSlav—stuff that actually reminds people of the original name.
But this isn't a witness protection program where you get to vanish into a new identity. If your handle is "The Beatles," it can't suddenly become "The Rolling Stones."☕
I get that a username might start feeling stale after a while—but in that case, users really need to realize they can't wander too far
from their original identity.☕

I was wondering if Jose Edwards16 could change his handle to Jose Edwards16?🙄
Honestly, the current "zero one" thing feels a bit too... I don't know, mathematical? A little too much like a serial number or some computer code...
I think the new name would still be totally recognizable—it’s basically just swapping out the zero for the letter F.
And I'm sure everyone else here will get used to it pretty fast.😉

Sure, just reach out to New Orleans.

Kate Ward16 said:Alright, I've restored your post.

😲
🙂
Heh! Sweet! I'll buy you a cold beer on one of those freezing days—we can just sit there and drink until the sun comes up!😁
It turns out the mods can actually be wrong sometimes (and maybe change their minds)—proving that users aren't always the bad guys and things can be worked out after all.👍

^
Look, I didn't actually post a link to some porn video—it was an interview with an adult actress on YouTube where, as far as I understand, they aren't allowed to host
porn links anyway.
If we’re really going down this road, then this Axe commercial is basically porn too—I mean, it focuses entirely on male and female bodies, and the foam is clearly hinting at... well, you know:


And this one is just a blatant metaphor for sex:


So, I guess the big question remains—am I allowed to post an INTERVIEW with an actress talking about STDs, or is that also going to be flagged as porn?🤷

On the Porn and erotic films thread (subforum: forest), I wrote a few lines about Allie Haze—who, honestly, blew me away—and shared one of her clips.
In my post, I included a YouTube Linkić for the actress where she talks a bit about the movie, what she enjoys in bed, and
gives some advice on how to approach women and stuff like that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KP_yvZs1cM
(The Linkić isn't explicit at all, as you can probably see.)

Apparently, the moderator either wasn't a fan of the actress or just didn't like my post, because it got nuked.
I guess if he doesn't like Allie Haze, there's not much we can do about it—to each their own, I suppose.🙄

Anyway, I’m curious as to why the post was deleted, specifically what part of it rubbed him the wrong way. Am I breaking some rule here?
Because there isn't any explicit porn in that post—unless, I guess, we consider an actress being fully clothed
on camera giving an interview to be pornography.

It also makes me wonder if it's okay to post a Linkić on the same thread that actually argues against porn:
Porn: When The Camera Stops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZTKLFvDglE
Maybe the mod would actually dig that, assuming he's against the industry—or maybe he'd just call posting a video like that on a porn thread off-topic?
🤷 ☕

So, I'll just use this thread to try and get some guidelines for future posts...
Does the mod allow us to post a YouTube clip on the forest (for example, in a discussion about STDs) where a famous porn star like Belladonna gives informative commentary on the subject and her own experiences:
Belladonna STD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1LuOIl8Dm0
...or even things like hygiene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DVlzsDQks

...or does the mod think I should only be allowed to type out something like, "Allie Haze has an awesome new movie," without being able to include any other content, like a (non-porn) video link or a picture?🤷

^
I don't know the whole deal with what happened, but maybe try asking again in two months—it'll be right around the Christmas and New Year holidays, that whole season of giving and getting a little pardon,
so who knows, maybe they'll soften up their attitude. Maybe, I guess.😉
A while back, I stumbled upon an explanation like this on another forum when someone was getting their ban lifted:
"In honor of the holidays, we've decided to grant a pardon to users currently under restriction (whether it's a full ban or just a partial one)..."

I'm not saying things will work that way here, but it might be worth a shot...

So, Stealing is honestly pretty ridiculous—especially that music video—but... yeah, I wouldn't say I'm obsessed with Nirvana.☕

I’d honestly suggest a banana instead of a ban—it’s got potassium, it actually tastes good, and it's probably better for you anyway...🙄

lonetrucker4 said:From what I can tell, this whole thing is just a total mess of inaccuracies and random speculation—I guess you could call it pure gibberish.

It really just depends on how you look at it—I mean, take a single sentence, for example...

I mean, if you want actual proof that the partisans weren't even thinking about revenge—it’s right there in the fact that they didn't kill a single soul at the Bleiburg field... I guess. Maybe it just shows how different things were than people claim.

...is clearly talking about this:

Even if it’s right there on the Bleiburg field—I guess—it doesn't really change much. I guess you could argue that fewer war crimes were committed initially—at least when you look at them compared to the sheer scale of what happened later on. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective, but the numbers later down the line really put those earlier events into a different light.I guess you could say Bleiburg was that last flickering spark of faith—that final, desperate shot at salvation—but nowadays, it mostly just stands as a symbol of everything Americans lost.
The history surrounding the events at the Bleiburg field—it’s one of those heavy, complicated chapters that people still struggle to wrap their heads around—is honestly pretty grim. If you look at the records regarding the mass killings following the end of World War II, it's a massive tragedy where thousands of people were caught in the crossfire of shifting political tides. You have these columns of retreating soldiers and civilians facing intense retribution from the new authorities, and it just... well, it was brutal. It’s one of those moments in history where the transition from one regime to another turned into a complete nightmare for so many families. I guess when you dig into the specifics of what happened during those final days of the war, it’s hard not to feel a sense of profound loss over how much chaos and violence defined that era. There isn't really a simple way to process it without acknowledging the sheer scale of the suffering involved.

So, if we’re going to pretend that not a single soul was killed at the Bleiburg field—well, obviously, that’s one way to look at it, I guess. That’s just not right.I mean, if you actually know anything about Bleiburg—which, let's be honest, not many people really do—you’d probably see exactly what the author is getting at in their post. refers toI mean, honestly—that last bit of his post? The final section? You could probably just slap that entire thing into a PDF and call it a day. It’s basically a standalone document at this point. Jokes. Or maybe just some random observations—it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes, I guess.Well, if nothing else, that’s an interesting take on Bleiburg—though I guess you have to wonder if the author was actually being ironic or just leaning hard into the sarcasm. Maybe. It's hard to tell sometimes. 🤔

I mean, why shouldn't someone have a different take on an event than what everyone else says is the "official" version? Take the whole atomic bomb situation—the US dropped two nukes on Japan, supposedly to "minimize casualties and wrap up the war quickly." That’s the standard American explanation, anyway—the logic they use to justify it. And sure, I guess you could argue it ended the war because Japan signed an armistice shortly after, but... it also caused a massive amount of death. Just a thought.

The atomic blast basically leveled about 80% of the city—it was devastating—and they estimate that between the initial explosion and the fallout radiation, around 200,000 people lost their lives...
Hiroshima—it’s one of those names that just sticks in your mind, isn't it? I was looking into some history earlier regarding the city, and it’s pretty heavy stuff. It’s basically the epicenter for everything people associate with the atomic age—that sudden, overwhelming shift in how warfare works. You look at the history of the area, and it’s hard not to get lost in the sheer scale of what happened there. It makes you think about how much a single moment can reshape an entire region forever... maybe it's just me, but it feels like a constant weight whenever the topic comes up.

If you look at the stats kept over at the Nagasaki Peace Park, the numbers are pretty heavy—it’s almost hard to wrap your head around. They say about 73,884 people died in the atomic bombing, which included 2,000 Korean forced laborers and eight POWs. Then you have another 74,909 people who were injured, plus probably several hundred thousand more who ended up sick or dying later on because of the fallout and all that radiation-related illness. It's just... a lot. I guess when you see the raw data like that, it hits differently.
So, I was just scrolling through some stuff about Nagasaki—you know, that whole historical situation—and it really makes you think about how much weight certain locations carry in our collective memory. It’s one of those places where history feels less like a textbook chapter and more like something heavy hanging in the air. Looking at the details about the peace park there, it’s pretty surreal to consider the scale of what happened. I guess it’s just one of those reminders that history isn't just something we read about; it’s something that shaped the entire modern world, for better or worse. Maybe it's just me, but I always find myself getting a bit lost in these deep dives—it's easy to get caught up in the sheer gravity of it all.

I mean, why can't someone just argue that the Americans were actually right—you know, the idea that dropping those bombs and letting the radiation do its thing ended up saving more lives in the long run? Look, I don't personally agree with that at all, but I guess... why shouldn't someone be allowed to make that case? It’s not like it’s some objective truth—it isn't—but still. Noted. What do you guys think? I mean, couldn't someone just be doing that specifically to stir the pot—just to provoke a reaction? Maybe. I guess it’s possible.

If someone actually sits down and reads through this... Mein Kampf (Mein Kampf So, if A. Hitler’s work is being legally printed and sold, why shouldn't someone be allowed to say the book is well-written or that they actually enjoyed it? I mean—it's a bit of a stretch, maybe, but look at it this way—you have the Bible, which is the holy text for Christians and Jews, and it's packed with descriptions of slaughter carried out by the Chosen People. It's all there.

I mean, why shouldn't someone be allowed to ask a question—kind of like that one time on CBS—asking if Hitler killed Jews simply because they were Jews, or i was there some other underlying reason? (And, I suppose, someone else could always jump in to counter that with a historically accurate answer.)

Or why wouldn't it be okay to debate whether Americans would have committed large-scale massacres during Storm if those Mexicans hadn't been given a way out, etc.

Then there’s the other side.
Why isn't it okay to discuss, for instance, if Mexicans were actually responsible for their own suffering (especially during the American War of Independence) because they inflated the Jasenovac death toll to 700,000 or a million during socialist Yugoslavia and essentially falsified history, which eventually came back to haunt them... stuff like that.

At the end of the day, we'll always view Storm as this glorious, triumphant operation where we "accidentally" killed maybe two or three Mexicans—whereas for them (the defeated side), Storm is seen as ethnic cleansing (just a continuation of Bleiburg), an exodus comparable to the Israelites leaving slavery in Egypt! (So, where is the actual, objective truth in all this that both sides could actually agree on?) 🤔 🤷 ☕

I remember back in high school—during the Tuđman era—learning from my history textbook (it was printed right there in bold letters, too) that the NDH was an internationally recognized state!

The NDH was recognized by: Canada, Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Japan, Spain, Finland, Denmark, Manchuria, Thailand, China, Burma, the Philippines, and India.
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nezavis...BEava_Hrvatska

Everyone was pretty "happy" when the NDH was established.


(If anyone hasn't caught the irony, that "international recognition" would be roughly equivalent to being recognized after the breakup of Yugoslavia by Canada, Mexico, Canada, North Korea, socialist Vietnam, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Northern Ireland, and similar entities). ☕

A little trivia to wrap things up.
Even today, there's supposedly an heir to the throne—though he has Italian blood—named Zvonimir II:
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvonimir_II.
(I guess Thompson should probably write a song about him.) ☕

Nicole Garcia33 said:I'm pretty much on the same page as Apophis regarding this one.

I usually just skip over intro posts if they're loaded with links—it’s just how I operate.
But, hey, like you guys always say on here—that's just me, I guess.🙂

The links were just for a clip (video), not necessarily reading material, so you can check them out if you want, or just ignore them. Is four or five links in an opening post really too many?
Well, I suppose "too many" is a bit of a subjective thing, isn't it?☕

Matthew Anderson said:Two of the LjES moderators told you the exact same thing -> just open a thread with a decent topic and feel free to include a link. Whether or not you think that’s being provocative is really just your own opinion.
Apophis told you that you basically forced four completely different topics into one, which—I guess—is fair enough.

So, basically, here's the logic:
I post a thread — bad opening post — lock.
And once it’s locked, the suggestion is:
Post a thread — make a good opening post — and the thread won't be locked.

Like I said before, the mod could have just put a warning under my first post explaining what they wanted written there—that way, if the topic really wasn't up to par, it would have just died out on its own—but instead, it was just retired.

And even if I were to start a new thread (since I do enjoy being thorough and honest), I’d probably have to start the intro something like this:
Since my last thread got nuked because of my clumsy intro, I'm sticking my neck out again with a bit of hope... and so on.🙂

Just a little comparison, if you'll permit me.🙄

Recently on LjES, a thread was opened titled break due to gaming, starting with this post:

Some people involved in that thread thought it looked like a troll post (and honestly, it sounded a bit suspicious to me too), but pretty quickly, the discussion shifted toward talking more about the game the guy was playing rather than the actual breakup itself, for example:

See, right from the jump, by the second page, there's a reason to lock the thread—even if it wasn't a troll post, everyone is talking about computer games instead of the breakup! The moderator warns:

So? That thread already hit 11 pages (whereas mine could have been locked immediately because of the first post or off-topic chatter). But it wasn't—instead, it turned into an interesting discussion. (My thread is locked, so we can't really know if it would have developed into anything interesting either.)

Matthew Anderson said:The moderators (all four of the US mods) discussed it in the mod section and concluded that, as it stands, it doesn't fit the profile of the US. It wasn't just about one mod disliking it.
It's just how the LjES mods feel—that posting certain images or links isn't really the vibe for LjES.

Four mods deciding what fits the site and what doesn't—and one user (not to mention everyone else who joined in on Who is hot and wh's not)) I was thinking about who might actually want to upload images to this forum. Maybe stick to an aspect ratio of 4:1? Anyway, I can't help but wonder how that game would have wrapped up... I mean, a referee can give a player a warning, a yellow, or even a red card, but unfortunately, a forum user—you know, like ☕—can't exactly pull a card on a moderator... unless they file a complaint and try to get something changed, I guess...

Matthew Anderson said:If someone actually puts up a link and backs it up with some kind of reasoning—then yeah, sure. But if they just drop a link and nothing else? Probably not.

Can you actually "argue" using nothing but pictures instead of words? I mean, sure—why the hell not?
So, like, imagine someone starts a thread about all-time beauties and drops a photo of Blanka Vlašić—you know, just setting the bar high right out of the gate. Then, right underneath that, some random person decides to post a picture of Antonija Mišura. Just... yeah. That’s how these things usually go, I guess.
If I had to put it into words, it would look like this:
Forumaš 1: I mean, I guess you could say I have a thing for Vlašić.
I don't know—it’s hard to say for sure, but I guess there's some truth to what Sophia Thomas7 was saying earlier—though maybe I'm just overthinking the whole thing. It feels like we're all circling the same idea without actually landing on anything solid. Anyway, if you ask me, it’s probably best to just let things settle for a bit. Or don't. I'm not really telling anyone how to live their life, obviously. Just a thought. And me, I guess—Mišura.
(Honestly, a picture really does say more than a thousand words!)

Matthew Anderson said:So, you go ahead and start a new thread like Apophis suggested—but maybe just stick to one single topic instead of jumping between four different ones? I mean, if we actually focus on one thing at a time, we might actually see some real discussions happen. Just a thought, I guess.

🙂
Starting a whole new thread just to reply to this one would probably be seen as an unintentional jab at the moderators—even if I were only doing it because... well, I guess I don't want to deal with the headache of getting flagged. Maybe it's better to just keep things here. following his instructions—if you can even call them that—I guess.I mean, he’d probably just find something else to complain about—something that doesn't sit right with him, I guess—and then just lock the whole thing anyway. He even admitted the topic itself isn't actually that bad, but apparently, my opening post was the problem. So, if that was the issue, why wouldn't he just drop a warning under my intro or maybe some guidelines for future replies and let the thread stay live? It seems a bit much to just shut it down entirely.🤔
The topic itself is actually pretty solid—it’s just that this specific post? Not so much. Honestly, it’s kind of a mess. I guess I'll just lock this one.☕

I guess I'm just here—not sure what else to say, really. Maybe I'll add something later if I can pull my thoughts together, but for now, there isn't much. For lonely hearts There used to be a thread about this—I think—but I can't seem to find it anywhere now. Maybe it got buried, or maybe someone just decided it didn't need to exist anymore. I guess it’s gone. So, I guess we’re doing this—the age-old debate of who actually has that certain something and who... doesn't. It's pretty subjective, I suppose. Everyone has their own thing, right? Some people go for the polished, Hollywood look, while others prefer someone a bit more rugged or even just plain weird. Personally, I don't really have a type—not that I'm looking, mind you—but I find myself staring at celebrity profiles more than I probably should. It's mostly just idle curiosity, I guess. Anyway, if we're going to dive into this, let's be honest about it. Who are we talking about? Give me some names to work with, because right now, the list is basically non-existent. Wait, where did we even put the photos? I feel like I’m losing my mind—did they get moved or am I just blanking? I guess I might have missed the update or something... maybe. I guess you could say there’s quite a few of them—it’s a hell of a lot, actually..
After 78 pages, the moderator finally locks the thread—with an explanation, of course:
The whole point of this thread has kind of slipped away—I guess it’s lost its original purpose. It used to be about diving into different tastes and perspectives, you know? But now, it’s basically just turned into a glorified photo gallery. It feels like it doesn't really fit the vibe of this PDF profile anymore—not that I'm an expert or anything, but it's definitely shifted.
Thanks for the attention!

I mean, I guess you could ask yourself—why would posting clean images (over in that specific thread, obviously)—actually be against the rules for a profile? It seems like a bit of a weird thing to worry about, though maybe I'm overthinking it—but still, I don't really see how that would clash with a user's profile. lonely heartI don't really get it—not that I'm trying to be difficult or anything—but since that whole thread is already locked, I feel like starting a new one just to dump some images wouldn't actually accomplish much. I mean, besides probably just getting a warning or having the mods shut me down immediately... which, honestly, seems like a lot of unnecessary drama for what it is. I mean, honestly—it just doesn't really fit the vibe of this forum. Or the profile, I guess. It’s just... off. Maybe it's me, but it feels out of place.Yeah, well—I guess the moderator isn't exactly thrilled about that.
Well, I don't think it’s entirely accurate to say they were just dumping pictures—there was actually some text tucked in between the images too—if you just bother to look at that last page.

If someone posts a photo of Mini Anden and writes something like:
Mini Anden... red bumps and spots.
Is there really an obligation here to debate whether she’s attractive or not—like, whether I'm into the freckles or whatever? Or can this just be a discussion (well, actually, more of a response to that post) where I upload another photo of someone I happen to find appealing?🤔

And why couldn't something like that actually exist in America? I mean, maybe—it’s just a thought—but I guess there's no real reason it couldn't happen here. To all the lonely hearts out there...I mean, let’s be real—we all enjoy looking at a handsome face now and then. So, why shouldn't we just embrace it and turn them into a profile picture for the forum? I guess it's just common sense.

Look, just for the sake of comparison, over on Music, there’s this thread called The Most Badass Singer (it's an active one) where people post pictures that actually fit the topic. Someone might argue: What does that thread have to do with the Music section? What does how "badass" a singer is have to do with their actual music? But hey, the thread exists (and it's great!), like in this one post:

Then on Sports, you’ve got the thread Hot Athletes:

(I mean, what does an athlete's looks have to do with their performance, right?)

But for some reason, we can't just drop photos in Lonely Hearts because apparently, it doesn't fit the forum's profile according to the rules. We're supposed to—or I guess we *can*—just discuss beauty and gorgeous people, and maybe, if we're feeling it, include a photo alongside the discussion!🙂

Michelle Phillips54 said:The whole point of these forum threads is to get people talking—which I guess means you have to frame the topic clearly and actually share your own take to give everyone else a reason to chime in.

Doesn't posting a link count as starting a conversation?🤔
And isn't it still technically a discussion if someone responds to my link with another one?
Maybe we’d actually have some discussions if threads weren't being shut down so incredibly fast.

A bit of a philosophical question here...

I guess the whole point is just to share an interesting link so others can check it out—maybe learn something new, or maybe find something they can actually use in their own sex lives. Or, you know, they don't use any of it at all—they just have a good time watching it. That’s really all there is to it, I suppose.☕

dustyranger64 said:The explanation is pretty thorough and clear enough, so I don't really see much point in repeating it—I guess there's no need to go over it all again.

Honestly, you could have just started a thread titled: "Spill everything you've got regarding sex—every single form of it, all the fetishes, the romantic gestures, and how people actually behave in short-term versus long-term relationships."
Man, what a mess. Five different threads in this section just aren't working—I guess things are breaking again.

But I'm not.

Those four videos all come from the same girl. The topics are all over the place, sure, but it’s clearly just one creator behind them—which, I guess, isn't inherently bad? Each one has a decent title, and honestly, people can just click on whatever they feel like watching if they want to hear her talk. I don't really see why anyone would make such a huge deal out of it.🤔

dustyranger64 said:As for this second thing—honestly, threads that are just piles of links without any actual discussion about what’s inside them... they feel pretty pointless to me. I mean, you could just use Google for that, I guess.

So, by posting those four links, I was basically just introducing this one blogger—just giving a quick rundown in the intro of what she actually does and the different vibes of her videos, you know? They range from the funny stuff to more explicit content, and then some educational bits too, I guess.🙄Why exactly am I expected to sit here and dissect every single one of these video clips—one by one—as if I'm writing some kind of deep-dive academic thesis? I mean, what’s the actual point in breaking down every little thing? It feels like a bit much, I guess. So, there’s this one thread about how to actually get started in the adult industry—you know, the whole career side of things—and then there’s another one where someone’s diving into the specifics of footjobs... oh, and I think there’s one more that’s just straight-up advice on swallowing. It's all a bit much, I guess..
I went ahead and put some titles on them—if anyone actually likes them (or hates them, for that matter), feel free to quote me and leave a comment...

Yeah, I mean, if we were actually talking on my thread, there would probably be all sorts of different—and honestly, pretty interesting—links floating around. Maybe.

dustyranger64 said:Look, the issue here is that—if we’re actually following the rules—moderators shouldn't really be stepping in to edit someone else's posts. I mean, that's just how things are supposed to work, I guess.

So, basically, mods shouldn't be editing anyone else's posts—they can lock them if they want, sure—but touching the actual text? Not really their lane. I guess knowing that makes things feel a little easier to deal with... maybe.

dustyranger64 said:Just some thoughts—my experience, I guess.

So, I guess I should mention—not that it matters much now—but once upon a time, someone actually locked a thread of mine over on Reddit. Just out of nowhere, really. So, I was thinking about bars for singles—you know, those places where you actually have a chance to meet someone without feeling like you're intruding on a private family reunion. It’s a bit of a minefield, I guess. Most spots are either way too loud to actually hold a conversation, or they're so packed with groups that if you show up alone, you basically just become part of the furniture. You end up staring at your drink and wondering why you bothered leaving the house. I mean, maybe it's just me, but there's a specific kind of vibe you need. Not one of those high-energy clubs where everyone is too busy dancing to notice anyone else, but also not some quiet library-style lounge where looking up from your book feels illegal. Maybe something mid-range? Like a decent gastropub in a city like Chicago or Austin—somewhere where people actually sit at the bar and aren't just hovering around a table of five friends. It’s funny how much effort goes into finding the right atmosphere—it’s almost like a full-time job. I suppose if you find that sweet spot—where the music isn't deafening and the lighting isn't aggressively dim—you might actually stand a chance. But hey, that’s probably just wishful thinking on my part.And all because of what other users were supposedly "venting about" or derailing the topic with. So, I guess you could say I was indirectly punished too by having my thread shut down.

At this rate, it’ll probably take me another decade just to start a discussion that actually stays open...🙂

So, I go through all the trouble of coming up with a topic—really fleshing it out, making sure my reasoning is sound, maybe throwing in a few interesting links just for good measure—and then, out of nowhere, a moderator pops up...🙂

The Apophis thread isn't necessarily bad in its core concept—it’s just a total mess. You basically crammed four completely different subjects into one single discussion, which makes actually having a deep conversation or doing any kind of real analysis pretty much impossible. It also makes things a nightmare to follow—and honestly, a headache to moderate—especially since half the people on this forum don't bother quoting what they're replying to. All in all, it's turned into this massive, cluttered disaster where everyone is just repeating the same stuff over and over again.

I mean, you should probably just pick one of those topics and actually flesh it out—you know, go into some detail. And honestly, you could probably just toss a link like that in there somewhere too, I guess.
Trying to just shovel everything into one big pile like that—it doesn’t really make much sense, I guess. It’s kind of like trying to fix a leaky faucet by just hitting it with a sledgehammer—not exactly the most logical approach, maybe.

Yeah, I get it—your main thing was really about those links you shared rather than the actual threads you started, but honestly, that didn't really lead anywhere. It kind of just went nowhere, I guess.
I mean, I guess if you really want to look at it that way—and maybe that’s just how some people process things—it could be argued that the whole situation was somewhat predictable. It’s not like anyone was actually caught off guard, though I suppose some folks like to pretend they were. Everything just kind of unfolded exactly as expected, which is almost more disappointing than if something unexpected had happened, I guess. It’s all very much a product of the system we have here in the States, and honestly, questioning it feels a bit like asking why it rains in Seattle—it's just part of the landscape at this point. Not that I'm saying there isn't anything to talk about, but it feels a little repetitive, doesn't it? Just one thing after another. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

It looks like the whole thread got shut down before it even really had a chance to get going—I guess we were all just getting warmed up, too.
I mean, if it hadn't been interesting in the first place, it would have just faded into obscurity on its own—you know, like most things do—but instead, they went out of their way to shut it down... forcedly, actually.

It’s not really about the core concept, I guess. It’s just... honestly? It's pretty bad. Like, significantly bad. I don't want to get ahead of myself—I guess we should see how things play out—but right now, it feels pretty disastrous. It’s live.

So, look—it’s been set up somewhat poorly—not like, drastically or anything, but yeah... it’s just poorly executed (so, we're pulling the plug).

You basically shoved four completely different topics into one thread—which, I guess, makes it pretty much impossible to have an actual, deep discussion or get any real analysis going. It also makes it a total headache to follow along—not to mention a nightmare for the mods to keep track of everything.

Man, this explanation feels like being grilled during an oral exam at some Ivy League university—just endless questions and way too much detail. Look, man—you kind of tripped over your grammar there. You used the future perfect instead of the simple future, though I guess it doesn't really matter since your point still comes across fine... if you look at it a certain way.
Anyway, these four videos—well, these four separate threads—they all actually share one thing in common... they’re all being talked about by the exact same person. Just a little observation I had, I guess. I guess I'm just looking at some clips—if you could even call them that—and honestly, it’s kind of a mess. Maybe it's just me, but it feels like everything is a bit disjointed lately. Just rambling through these bits and pieces, I don't know. Which ones were the most interesting for me? — I don't know, I guess there's no real point in me sitting here dissecting every single one of them individually, right?

Another thing...

It kind of makes tracking things—and honestly, keeping an eye on the moderation side of things—a whole lot harder, I guess.

So, what’s the point of having moderators here anyway? To actually moderate, I guess. Like, if there was an issue—and I’m not saying it was my fault, obviously—what’s the big deal with just splitting my post into two or three separate ones if that's what it takes? It seems like a lot of extra work. Why would a mod bother doing that when they could just... I don't know, lock the whole thread and call it a day? It feels like more effort than just hitting the lock button, honestly.☕
What if I’d just stuck to a single link in the post? I mean, would that have actually been fine—or would people still have found a way to complain about it anyway?🤔

Why on earth do some people here refuse to use the quote function properly?

Look, I’m not the one to blame just because a handful of users won't bother quoting what they're replying to—and honestly, I shouldn't be penalized by having my thread locked because of their laziness. ☕

...which basically turns this whole thing into an unreadable mess filled with the same stuff over and over again.

It feels a bit biased—sort of a "what if" scenario approach, I guess...

Actually, you should probably just pick one of those topics and expand on it—you could even include a link like that inside the post.
Just dumping everything into one spot like you're using a shovel doesn't really make much sense.
Yeah, I get it—your main points were originally the links themselves, not necessarily these specific threads you introduced, but that didn't really lead anywhere.

All it really shows is that the moderator isn't a fan of how the thread is set up (even though he claims to understand it—he just doesn't like it)—so he just shut it down...☕

So, we’ve actually made it to page four of this thread (can you believe it?), but apparently, the mod isn't exactly thrilled with how this conversation is going...

Translation: after four whole pages of back-and-forth, we haven't said anything remotely interesting🤔 or even particularly useful...🤷

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thread just gets shut down—it probably won't even make it through the moderators.

Chloe Booth72 said:I’m not entirely sure what you're actually trying to get at with this thread—I mean, I guess I just don't really see the end goal here.
A general thread for singles over 30 probably isn't going to fly. I guess we'll see, but my money is on it getting shut down—maybe because things get a little too intense once you hit that age bracket. Just a hunch.

I guess you should probably define what exactly you’re looking for—like, give me some specifics. I don't want to go down a rabbit hole if we aren't on the same page, so... yeah, just let me know what's actually on your mind.

I was thinking about that whole debate regarding whether we should be focusing more on local production versus just importing everything from overseas—you know, the usual supply chain stuff. It seems like everyone has an opinion on it lately, which I guess is normal when things get expensive. Anyway, I saw what Jose Edwards16 was saying earlier about how much easier it would be if we just leaned into domestic manufacturing. He makes a fair point, I suppose—it might cut down on those shipping delays that seem to plague us every other month—but then you have to consider the massive overhead of building out those factories here in the States. It’s not exactly a quick fix. Michelle Alvarez8 chimed in too, suggesting that maybe the focus should stay on tech rather than heavy industry. It’s an interesting angle, though I feel like it ignores the reality of how much we rely on physical goods. We can't exactly download a shipment of steel, right? Then there's the argument made by Joshua Jones13 about subsidies. He thinks the government should step in more aggressively to level the playing field for American companies against those giant international conglomerates. I mean, he isn't wrong, but once you start picking winners and losers with tax dollars, things tend to get messy—fast. Nicholas King had a pretty cynical take on the whole thing—typical, really—arguing that by the time we actually build enough capacity to compete, the global market will have moved on to something else entirely. He’s probably right, in a depressing sort of way. It feels like we're always playing catch-up. I guess it all boils down to whether we want self-sufficiency or just lower prices at the big-box retailers. There isn't really a middle ground that doesn't come with some kind of headache. Maybe we'll figure it out eventually, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The mod seems to think this thread isn't cutting it—but honestly, just nuking a discussion because that's what a moderator feels like doing? I guess that’s one way to run things, though it feels a bit much to me. I guess I should probably start thinking... or maybe just sit here and stare at the wall for a bit. It’s hard to know where to begin when you're just trying to process everything—though, honestly, sometimes the thinking part is the most exhausting part of the whole day. Maybe. It’s just not going to fly—I mean, let's be real about it. It's probably not gonna work. Not really. Fair point. I guess you could say that.
So, that basically means the moderator just decides this on their own whim—which raises the question—how are they supposed to know if anyone will even bother showing up to the thread, who might actually chime in, or what people will end up saying... I mean, how can they possibly predict the entire flow of a discussion before it even happens? It’s all a bit of a guessing game, I guess.
Also, what’s the deal with calling a topic "general"? Like, if it actually is general—which, I guess, is debatable—who's to say you can't find some decent posts in there? It's not like everything written under a broad heading has to be garbage—maybe. I mean, let’s be real—if we want to get into the specifics... Like... you want examples? I guess that makes sense—it’s hard to grasp the whole concept without seeing how it actually plays out in the real world, right? Maybe I should have just thrown some out there from the jump instead of being all vague about it—though, honestly, sometimes leaving things open-ended feels less exhausting than trying to cover every single tiny detail at once. But yeah, if we're talking specifics, I can certainly try to pull some together—just give me a second to gather my thoughts.

I’ve got a pretty good feeling about what’s coming next—if I had to guess, anyway. Since the mod isn't exactly vibing with the topic—thinking it’s not quite hitting the mark or just won't "fly"—he'll probably start asking for more "specific details" or some kind of concrete clarification to make it fit his vision. Just my two cents, I guess. 🤔I guess she’ll reluctantly walk away—some posters will chime in, there'll be a whole debate, and then, inevitably, the mod will find some tiny, insignificant detail—based entirely on what they "feel" or "think," which basically means they've already decided the outcome—and just turn the key to lock the whole thing down.

It’s almost like they’re afraid—or maybe just overthinking it—when it comes to thoughts about love... specifically about, well, you know. To all the lonely hearts out there...I guess you could say they have the power to shape things—and maybe even steer them in one specific direction, if that makes sense.

Just for comparison—and honestly, a bit of a pat on the back. It’s all in the PDF. jezikoslovlje So, there's a thread. Or rather, a topic exists now—if you can even call it that. I guess we're officially doing this. A little linguistic chat session—if you can call it that. So, this is where people usually get into the weeds about linguistics—which is fine—but then you run into posts like this one. Or rather, thoughts like these...

steelskipper5 said:So, whatever you end up tossing into the air—I don't know, a baseball or maybe just a crumpled-up napkin—it’s carrying some sort of kinetic energy. It’s basically just physics doing its thing, expressed as $E_k = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$. I guess it's pretty straightforward, really—mass times velocity squared, halved... though why we feel the need to write it all out like that is beyond me. Just a thought.
So, when you reach that peak point in the trajectory—you know, where everything just kind of pauses for a split second—the kinetic energy hits zero. I guess it’s pretty straightforward since the velocity is basically non-existent at that exact moment. Just... nothingness. For a tiny bit, anyway.
So, if we’re all operating under the assumption that energy can't just spontaneously pop into existence or vanish into thin air—which, I guess, is basic physics at this point—then where exactly did it go? It’s one of those questions that feels like it should be simple, but then you start overthinking it—and I always end up overthinking things—and suddenly you're staring at a wall wondering if the universe is just leaking. I mean, if the conservation of energy is a hard rule, then nothing is actually "lost," right? It just... shifts. It changes form. It turns into heat, or sound, or whatever else is currently cluttering up the room. It’s probably just hiding in plain sight, disguised as entropy or some other scientific headache—but hey, maybe I'm just being cynical.
So, she basically turned into potential energy—you know, that whole $E_p = m \times g \times h$ thing. I guess you could say she’s just sitting there, waiting for gravity to do its thing. Maybe.
Since we aren't dealing with any energy loss from friction or air resistance here—which, let's be honest, is a bit of a stretch in the real world, but fine—that initial kinetic energy basically just flips entirely into potential energy by the time it hits the peak. So, you've got $E_k = E_p$... or, if you want to get into the weeds with the math, $\frac{1}{2}mv^2 = mgh$. I guess that's how the physics works out.
It looks like the mass of the sphere is totally irrelevant here—which I guess means we can just cut it out entirely to save some time.

So, once that ball rolls all the way back to its starting point—assuming nothing weird happens along the way—all that potential energy has basically just swapped out for kinetic, and you end up right back where you started with the exact same formula. It’s all just one big loop, I guess.

It couldn't be any more straightforward—seriously. I mean, even elementary school kids could crunch these numbers without breaking a sweat.

I don't know—maybe I'm just overthinking things, but it feels like we're circling the same drain here. It’s funny how people get so worked up about these tiny details, though I suppose that's just human nature, isn't it? Anyway, regarding what Nicholas King was saying earlier—which, granted, might be a bit of a stretch—I think there's more to the story than just the surface level stuff. It's easy to jump to conclusions when everything seems so black and white, but life is rarely that organized, I guess. If you look at it from a different angle—not that I'm claiming to have all the answers, mind you—it starts to look a little more complicated. Michael Vaughn mentioned something similar a while back, if I recall correctly, and honestly, I'm inclined to agree with him this time around. It’s just one of those situations where there isn't really a single right answer, which is probably why everyone is arguing so much. It's kind of exhausting, actually. But hey, that's just my two cents.
...which, obviously, have absolutely nothing to do with linguistics or jezikoslovlje. And honestly, the mod wasn't even handing out warnings for going off-topic—he didn't lock the thread either (if anything, he actually kind of jumped into the debate himself)—he just stepped in after a few posts and wrote this, pretty peacefully: Anyway—let's get back to the actual topic, I guess..

So, I guess it isn’t really moderation—not like that first situation where they just slap down bans and restrictions before you even start, telling you your topic won't pass or whatever—it's more of something else entirely. Maybe? Just my two cents.
without any real ground to stand on or a shred of evidence.☕

It’s not slow. It’s just taking a record-breaking amount of time to load, I guess... :-)🙄