Posts by Edward Ortiz77

What a total letdown *The Martian* turned out to be. In my opinion, the cast of *The Big Short* was robbed just so people could focus on that objectively mediocre flick.

I honestly think Leonardo DiCaprio needs to grab an Oscar this year just to put this whole debate to rest. Kate is overrated too, and *The Revenant* was legitimately the best film among the current competition.

That’s this Sunday, right? Tomorrow?

There’s always a bunch of different streams popping up, but that's not really my issue... does anyone know which networks will be airing it? I used to rely on CBS, but they always had those annoying audio sync issues, and now I don't even have access to them anymore.😢

I’m already not a fan of Spotlight, and I haven't even seen it yet. Out of everything available, The Big Short is still the best.

Walter Lopez84 said:Red Line is easily one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. I’m definitely checking this out; I’ve loved his work my whole life.

I watched The New World and thought it was decent, but I plan on watching this over the next couple of weeks (in segments, obviously) just so I can earn the right to nominate it for worst film of 2016. The peak of the absurdity is the trivia stating they didn't even have scripts and were just "improvising."😂

This movie is... like a black spot on a wall. It's like when you close your eyes and start seeing those little flashes of light, and then you try to imagine stars, galaxies, or some grand miracle—maybe even fortune telling. I have no doubt certain people will find "deeper meaning" in this, projecting significance that even the director probably didn't intend, but for me, it’s just brutally boring and exhausting. More of the same, too. It seems Malick is just trying to "clear the air" regarding his subconscious and family background before he reaches the end of his career. It's a shame, because Days of Heaven remains one of the greatest films I've ever watched.

Grace Sanders24 said:What on earth happened to him? He’s churning out movies every single year now. Even based on this trailer, it looks identical to his last two. It’s the same formula: a steady stream of music, a handful of famous actors who seem to be hooking up while looking deeply unhappy, and then a bunch of stars staring at the sky and stretching for no apparent reason. My expectations are hitting rock bottom. Honestly, it might not even be as bad as that last one where I had to fight the urge to kill myself for thirty minutes just watching Ben Affleck try to act deadly serious and in love.☕

🤣🤣

That’s it. I’m dead. 🤣

I don't get what happened to this guy. My first encounter with his work was the masterpiece *Days of Heaven*. After that, I stumbled upon *Tree of Life* and thought, fine, I'll pretend I haven't seen it just to give him a chance... but apparently, that was the peak. This repetitive, pretentious, larger-than-life posturing just keeps going, which suggests that *Days of Heaven* was actually the outlier. 😕

Bottom line, *Knight of Cups* is garbage. It felt like sitting through a two-hour commercial for some designer perfume. They should probably screen it in Guantanamo—or if we want to be less extreme, maybe just throw it into Central Park. People would lose their minds immediately.

I shut it off after 30 minutes. It was just too boring to sit through. I also had to endure that old lady yelling at me in a thick accent, but I'll deal with that later... sorry, Malik, in another life.

By all appearances, we’re becoming a major hotspot. Kudos to the administration for their dedicated efforts to ensure we become the primary collection hub for this part of America. 👍

Good morning, Ranko! As-salamu alaykum!

A transport plane from Dubai carrying 37 tons of supplies to aid refugees at the Opatovac reception center landed late last night at Osijek Airport.

- The shipment includes thermal blankets, raincoats, heaters, and solar lights, delivered to the Osijek airport from the UNHCR logistics center in Dubai. This humanitarian aid is being moved immediately from the airport to Opatovac, where it will be available starting tomorrow (Thursday). This is just one portion of the humanitarian aid arriving in America organized by the UNHCR—as stated last night by Jan Kapić, spokesperson for UNHCR America.

He also announced that the first housing units should arrive from Poland today, which will be set up at the future shelter site in Slavonski Brod.

This is taken directly from the general rules issued by Anderlon back in 2010.

Posts on this Forum represent solely the views and opinions of the authors, not the Forum publisher, moderators, or administrators. Forum.hr does not take responsibility for the content of messages or the opinions expressed within them.

Despite the dedicated work of the moderators, it is possible for posts that violate the Forum rules to remain active. To have such messages removed, the moderators or administrators must be notified.

In the event that litigious messages are published, the aggrieved party may sue the author of the post. This should be understood by both the authors themselves and those who feel harmed by such messages. Forum.hr is obligated to provide identifying information upon the presentation of a court order or police warrant (and only upon the presentation of such documents).

Basically, everyone is individually responsible for everything they write and bears any resulting sanctions.

From this section alone, it’s clear that an author must be notified if their thoughts or contributions to the forum are decided to be "reshaped" in any way.

Sam Green73 is therefore obligated to moderate any post that has already passed through moderator control after a certain amount of time and notify the user. Otherwise, it isn't just a breach of trust with the community—it puts users in a position where they are being judged for words they didn't actually say in that altered context.

If I recall correctly, there is even a rule somewhere stating that posts shouldn't be reshaped during a standard "quote," so I don't see why moderators would have the right to do this without the author's explicit consent. If a post bothers you, delete it, but you have an obligation to inform the author—someone who is enriching this forum with their own topics, contributions, and intellectual property, and bringing in new users for you.

I wasn't aware of that, but I noticed it while searching for specific data from this thread—it's become impossible to find things easily, and I consider myself a pretty decent researcher.

The notion that we can't state facts, such as how Vesna Pusić and Ivo Josipović rejected membership in the Visegrad Group last year, is completely illogical. It’s like saying we’re allowed to discuss the American War of Independence but aren't permitted to mention Franjo Harmon or the Republican Party. Anyway, rapidnomat512 already laid it out, and I've made my point too; there’s no sense in just repeating empty arguments.

Regardless, I think you've made your intentions clear regarding how you plan to handle this thread and what bothers you about it. Honestly, I'm glad it’s bothering you. After eighteen months of pushing this, it shows the topic has gained enough traction to reach a wider audience. 👍
The forum has served its purpose, so thanks for that. Now, let's look toward the future.

It took a full year and a half—on a thread moderated by slybison8, who commands genuine respect from both the users here and his fellow moderators—for you to swoop in and start "moderating." And how exactly are you doing that? By editing the original post eighteen months later just to claim: " Grammar fixes and layout adjustments without altering the content."

Let’s be clear:

1) Suddenly, this thread requires strict moderation and trimming, and conveniently, this happens right when Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović shows up at the Visegrad Group meeting.

2) You’re showing zero respect for the authority and experience of your colleague slybison8, essentially questioning his methods and his ability to moderate.

The conclusion is obvious: your decision to butcher this thread is purely ideological. In the process, you're undermining a professional colleague and casting doubt on his competence.

Here is the reality check you seem to be ignoring: this thread has never been an issue on this part of the forum, nor has it ever been treated as a "special case." You turned it into one through your own moderation. Are you actually trying to suggest that slybison8 was doing a poor job, necessitating your intervention after a year and a half?

If I recall correctly, our users have voted him as the best moderator multiple times. So, your decision to step in and "correct" his work is certainly... bold. 👍

Sam Green73 said:I actually went back and combed through the messages I deleted from that thread, and all I could find was this one:

To be perfectly honest, I don't see how that comment has anything to do with our discussion about the Visegrad Group.🤷

Can you walk me through your logic here?

This was posted under a thread regarding complaints about ballot cards:

William Bennett53 said:Check out this post
The Visegrad Group discussion isn't meant to be a pre-election chat for the American right wing. We already have plenty of that over on the election pdf, so please move those debates there. I get that it matters who supports or opposes bringing America closer to the Visegrad Group, but that’s a conversation for specific election-themed threads. The Visegrad topic on the EU subforum needs to stay focused on broader issues and rise above that partisan noise.

Correction of an inaccurate statement: the subject isn't "just" the Visegrad Group. The topic has actually been officially titled as such for a full year now.

The United States and the Visegrad Group.

So, yes. It makes perfect sense to discuss which factions within the American political landscape support our involvement in the Visegrad Group, what their stance is on that alliance, and—ultimately—what the current administration, now acting as a caretaker government, has actually done regarding our integration into the V4.

This is particularly critical when you consider reports suggesting that certain invitations have been sent to the executive branch of the U.S. government over the past year—information that the American public was kept completely in the dark about. It is entirely legitimate to debate what they did or didn't do regarding this matter, and if they failed to act, we need to know why. Since Americans head to the polls every four years for parliamentary elections, it is vital for anyone interested in this topic to have access to information regarding which political factions support the Visegrad Group. Anything less than full transparency is just plain censorship. Given how the media tries to frame the Visegrad Group as a quasi-political organization undermining the foundations of the European Union, I don't see why it should be an issue to highlight exactly who is backing such a controversial alliance.

The most recent deleted posts focused on the news that the State Department, led by Vesna Pusić and former President Ivo Josipović, rejected last year's formal invitation for the United States to join certain specific agreements. So yes, this information goes beyond mere pre-election maneuvering. At the moment that decision was made, these individuals were acting as established pillars of the administration, not as candidates vying for power in an upcoming election cycle.

Decent movie. It’s got some solid foundations. I had a few good laughs, and honestly, a comedy like this serves its purpose—it kept me entertained. Recommended.

Other people's bans don't concern me in this debate. My goal here is simply to demonstrate your incompetence and your inability to moderate this thread, which stems entirely from you catering to the petty whims of one female user. I see she’s constantly praising you, and since her intervention, you’ve been promoted to handling the immigration topic. That same woman has been harassing and bullying a moderator across several threads. The last thing I saw was her mocking him on a thread about the United Kingdom because of his title, using subtle, snake-like insults to provoke him on a personal level—but that’s your business, and frankly, I couldn't care less. If you’re willing to let people run things who actively bully your own colleagues and leak their private information, then I care even less. I am merely collateral damage here. I didn't bother reacting to the other "immigration" thread on Reddit because I didn't want to give her the satisfaction of a performance, though it's a shame, as I believe she deserved a much harsher penalty for the slander she leveled against me.

My own experience on this forum *does* concern me. You can pack up and leave until Judgment Day for all I care, but it remains an objective fact that you labeled blatant hate speech as mere trolling, while this thread is crawling with bans for much lesser offenses. I have no intention of digging through the jungle of this thread to pull out every single one of your moderating acrobatics. By linking this comment, my goal was to highlight the massive GAP in how you apply criteria to your friends versus your critics. I'll leave the final judgment to the higher-ups.

Quote:>

I remember how the Germans used to call us sixty years ago when we were migrating en masse—no papers, no trades, and no idea how to speak the language.What kind of worldview did we have back then? What kind of population was leaving?. Canadian and Herzegovinian peasants in ragged clothes, people who had never even seen a TV or a phone in their lives. Not to mention the lack of running water or plumbing. These Syrians, at least, know how to use a smartphone. North American pigs... Vis how quickly those North American pigs got used to soap and toothpaste,and how quickly they shat themselves fearing someone would take that very same soap and toothpaste away.

Let me repeat myself.

In the very first paragraph, he distances himself from "German impressions" and makes it clear he is expressing his own opinion when he writes: "What kind of worldview did we have back then? What kind of population was leaving?"
The answer provided is:
Canadian and Herzegovinian peasants, followed by a list of insults. The sentence where he concludes, "these Syrians, at least, know how to use a smartphone," confirms this isn't just about "German impressions."

The second part—"North American pigs." Only the phrase "North American pigs" answers the question in the first paragraph; everything in between and after is his personal opinion, which constitutes a severe form of hate speech.

He uses "North American pigs" as a way to drive home the insult: "shat themselves fearing someone would take their soap and toothpaste."

Given your supposedly rigorous standards, this ban is a joke. It serves as an extremely telling and crucial argument for this entire discussion regarding poor moderation, proving exactly what many users have already pointed out on this thread.

What is written above isn't just hate speech directed at two types of people.

To actually understand what Meadow and Edo are doing here, you need to scroll back through at least ten pages of this thread. You can't grasp the big picture if you just react to posts one by one. In this specific instance, the issue lies with the criteria being used. They aren't applied equally; there's a double standard between users who don't hold strong opinions, like lonebadger6 and Bradley Sanders4, and those who do. My own post, which I pinned to the top of this sub-forum, looks completely unfair if you try to weigh it against the body of work produced by Edo and Meadow over the last ten pages.

An example of hate speech slipped right under the radar because Bradley Sanders4 dismissed it as mere "trolling." Let me present it once more for clarity:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=5...7&postcount=34

Remember how the Germans used to view us sixty years ago when we were migrating en masse—no paperwork, no trade skills, barely speaking a word of the language. That was our global reputation back then, and that was the demographic leaving. Canadians and Herzegovinians in ragged socks, people who had never even seen a television or a phone in their lives. Don't even get me started on the lack of running water or basic plumbing. At least these Syrians know how to use a smartphone.

North American pigs... See how quickly those North American pigs got used to having soap and toothpaste, and how quickly they panicked at the thought of someone taking that very same soap and toothpaste away from them.

If a gentleman making comments about "Canadians, Herzegovinians... North American pigs" is treated with the same weight as my post regarding Index's laziness, then we really have nothing left to discuss.

The topic of sexual assault remains highly relevant because, over time, we've seen a clear correlation between migration from culturally distinct backgrounds and societies that have embraced multiculturalism. If you want to call it a clash of civilizations, fine—but that brings negative consequences that proponents of multiculturalism often ignore, frequently resorting to labels and hysteria to deflect. The real issue is that this discussion is provocative and requires an experienced moderator. There is a wealth of research already out there showing a direct link between migrant influxes in places like Sweden and rising rape rates. These are entirely legitimate topics that a competent, open-minded, intellectual, and well-read moderator should be able to handle without breaking a sweat. You all claim to be progressive and open-minded, yet you act exactly like those narrow-minded conservatives who refuse to even touch "taboo subjects."

lonebadger6 said:One of the golden rules around here is that you don't argue with moderator warnings. That’s exactly why this subforum exists—so you can file an appeal, just like you could have sent Bradley Sanders4 a private message to ask why you got flagged or what the issue was... You ended up with a record-breaking 90 points because you ignored three separate warnings and just kept pushing back against the mods right there in the thread...

You got flagged for hinting at some kind of "vow of silence" or conspiracy regarding incidents involving immigrants, especially since you were trolling from a few different angles...

That story you mentioned from Index—I have no clue which one you're actually talking about since you didn't bother with a link, and honestly, I don't spend much time reading Index anyway—you compared it to that video from... 2012. It’s been years since that whole thing went down... specifically regarding that incident in... 2009. He claimed there was some kind of "vow of silence" in effect, because apparently, you won't find any of that "fresh" news on Index... or whatever the hell he was trying to imply...

And we’re looking at anti-Israel protests that aren't just limited to Islamic groups, all playing out right while the Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip is in full swing...

Besides all that, it honestly took me about two seconds of Googling to realize there was never any kind of "conspiracy of silence" back then... everyone was reporting on it quite thoroughly, actually...

Jebiga, that’s basically the textbook definition of trolling, sorry...

No, that isn't trolling; it's being uninformed. I genuinely believed it was more recent. If I was wrong, you could have pointed that out more civilly. My post was focused on something else entirely. Even as a crude reactionary as I am, I still value dignity and the protection of children. That's why I warned against the exploitation of children by certain migrants, as seen in that iconic photo where a guy and his four buddies charge a police shield with a child in his arms. Later, based on that image, it was banned 🙂 to even mention the possibility of child exploitation and the crime that comes with this kind of chaotic, uncontrolled migration. So, you completely misread my post, not to mention the unfair strike.

I stand by my view that using a dead child for clicks is the absolute bottom of journalism—it's trashy, especially when they ignore the bigger picture and objective data from actual political institutions. Personally, I found the celebration of a dead boy's dignity to be disgusting because he's being used as a tool. My only regret is that I didn't vet my link better to provide a stronger example of journalistic hypocrisy, which is rampant in this "immigration" topic. But since we're talking about trolling, you have a moderator like Meadow who writes ten-page treatises filled with misinformation, yet nobody thought to remove her from the thread, let alone give her a strike, even though she "trolls" every participant with her basic ignorance of fundamental terms.

Before that, I posted at least five links from a few days and months ago that clearly show how "assimilation" works in Western society without the media reporting on it—especially vulture-like outlets like Index, which you treat as if they're some holy authority. Who reported this? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=338_1440538789

The point is, you can't see the forest for the trees, and your sense of moderation is 🙂
You play this part of some grand liberal and humanist, yet you come at everyone on Reddit with fire and fury.

I just got slapped with a ridiculous warning for allegedly "trolling," when I was actually staying perfectly on topic. Honestly, if you're going to be this arbitrary, just lock the thread entirely; this whole situation is a farce and an embarrassment. I don't doubt that certain moderators are trying their hardest, but their best clearly isn't enough because they're effectively killing the discussion.

Watched this movie today. It was good. I actually avoided reading the book first, which was a smart move—it allowed me to stay fully immersed in the plot and genuinely curious about how it would all wrap up. The time flew by and it kept me entertained. There are a few spots where the pacing drags slightly, but overall, it's a solid 7/10. 👍 The soundtrack was also quite strong. Highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't touched the book yet!

I am also joining the protest against the abysmal moderation regarding the immigration thread, adding yet another example of how biased this moderation truly is.

It is frankly unbelievable that after a series of protests on this subforum regarding Bradley Sanders4's handling of a similar immigration topic, the administration decided to reward her by giving her even more complex and massive topics to moderate in Politics instead of issuing sanctions.

One particular moderator is extremely biased and inconsistent; she dismantles discussions rather than guiding them with the minimal corrections that her predecessor—who was removed for unclear reasons—used to handle so effectively.

The absolute incompetence regarding this subject is proven by the fact that this post received a mere 35 points for trolling. This specific post from our colleague unknown is a textbook example of a severe rights violation and blatant hate speech, yet it was barely penalized. If we compare that to an instance of hate speech where our colleague Maria Booth received 500 points regarding volunteers, I think it is clear to everyone that the current moderation is completely unprepared for the challenges these topics present.

I remember how the Germans used to call us 60 years ago when we were leaving en masse for Germany—no papers, no trade, no language skills. What a worldview we had back then, and what kind of population was leaving. People from the North America and Herzegovina, in tattered clothes, who had never even seen a TV or a phone in their lives. Let alone basic running water or sewage. These Syrians at least know how to use a cell phone.

North American pigs... You see how quickly those North American pigs got used to soap and toothpaste, and how quickly they shat themselves just because someone might take that same soap and toothpaste away.

Furthermore, I would like to know what qualifications a TV moderator has to handle such a complex subject. The Politics subforum deals with serious matters, and it shouldn't be moderated haphazardly by just anyone. This certain moderator has chosen to follow in Bradley Sanders4's footsteps, so I suggest that if you are going to infringe upon freedom of speech, do it with less shame: simply lock the thread rather than letting it be butchered by a moderation team that, without intending to insult, is simply incapable of handling it.

I used to avoid this movie because I can't stand Bradley Cooper's attempts at acting, nor can I stomach how much Robert de Niro has let himself go, but I finally decided to give it a shot today. Honestly, what can I say? The plot is somewhat engaging and functional during the opening act—where the core idea feels decent enough—but then it steadily loses steam until it hits an ending that I personally found repulsive due to its sheer naivety. They never actually explain how he managed to keep producing tablets while simultaneously functioning on them. The film is riddled with logical gaps and gets particularly messy once you bring in that guy who’s supposed to sign the contract (Atwood?) who turns out to be using the tablets too... no, I can't even finish that thought. The presence of Bradley Cooper and a Robert de Niro who sells out his acting legacy far too easily is only tolerable if you're looking for ninety minutes of mindless entertainment to switch your brain off. For me, it's about a 6/10.