Posts by Carol Torres4

Jesse Ortiz71 said:Look, Carol Torres4, there’s honestly no point in you whining about the moderator criteria here. There isn't an ounce of objectivity to be found—it’s pure ideology from start to finish. One day they'll hand you 500 points just for showing up, and the next, they'll be breathing down someone else's neck demanding a three-day ban. That's just how the game is played on this site. It's their forum, so they make the rules—both the ones written in black and white and the ones they just pull out of thin air whenever they feel like it.

Do you honestly think I’m unaware of how this works? It’s all laid out plain as day now: Jerry Robinson can call me an idiot with zero consequences, but the moment I call him a moron, I’m looking at a strike. He gets to toss around amateur psychiatric diagnoses like "frenetic delusions" without blinking, yet when I attempt to diagnose him and his equally disturbed companion, we get hit with a ban.
It’s a predictable cycle; if someone like Zvone Bušić or Ivan Milas posts in American, they can act out without any sanctions, but if some typical leftist trash like Goran Šprem passes away, any negative comment results in an immediate ban.
And so it goes, on and on, until everything is documented, tallied, and filed away.

I think my last two posts have made everything perfectly clear. I simply gave them the same level of disrespect they showed me; they hand out warnings to me, yet they remain untouched.
It’s hard to find a more undeniable proof than that, or any better evidence that I am telling nothing but the truth.
When he calls me an idiot, it isn't a violation, but when I call him a moron—which is effectively the same thing—suddenly it’s a punishable offense.
One only needs to look at who is attacking me to see how obvious this bias is.
America will endure long after people like this are gone; they can project all their resentment onto me because I refuse to validate the lies regarding Operation Storm, or the endless stream of anti-American rhetoric they churn out daily. Their hostility is merely a symptom of their own impotence, as no one on this forum has ever been able to come close to countering my arguments.

The moderators haven't weighed in yet, though they usually show up just to penalize me for the exact same things their pro-anti-American counterparts get a pass for. Honestly, what more proof could anyone need of the situation here?

And you, MC, you seem quite comfortable defending Veselin Šljivančanin, much like you defended Ivo Sanders—whom I have never once praised, unlike you, who put him on a pedestal during his testimony before the Congressional committee regarding ExxonMobil.
So, my position remains unchanged.

Links: Your defense of Veselin Šljivančanin, the man responsible for the atrocities at Ovčar:

And then, on the final page, the moment both you and Marko Milanović lose all credibility:

Excerpted:

The two of you—you and Marko Milanović—were caught red-handed lying in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable: specifically, reducing the sentence of a criminal responsible for transporting the wounded to their execution. If you look closer at the thread, you'll see you even backed Marko Milanović’s claim that El Paso wasn't shelled nearly as heavily as Knin, even going so far as to say you felt sorry about it while maintaining it was the "truth." But that isn't the truth; it's just your interpretation of reality, which suffered a total collapse back on November 16, 2012. That day, it became painfully clear that I was speaking facts while you were all peddling falsehoods. Now, all you have left is to hate me, and I view your threats with the same indifference I held for the threats sent by a certain Goran Jagodić (assuming it wasn't you).

http://www.youtube.com/user/marasovac/discussion

Of course, an ignore list only works if someone is actually a registered member; if they aren't, you can still see the garbage they spew, but explaining that kind of logic to semi-literate people is a waste of my time.

I accept these two warnings quite willingly, having intentionally responded in the same tone used against me. After numerous warnings and following all the proper reporting procedures, there is no doubt that I am the target here, simply because I have exposed every single anti-American lie that has surfaced over the last fifteen years.

😁

Dennis Davis5 said:They’re blaming Boljkovac just because he helped lead the resistance near Karlovac back in '41 and held positions in the KPH and OSS. The real culprits are long gone. For twenty years now, we've seen movies and books working overtime to rehab the Nationalists legacy, and this is just more proof of that. This whole thing was set in motion by Karamarko, who comes from an Nationalists family.

The argument against Boljkovac ignores the fact that he is a killer and a war criminal.
Beyond those specific crimes, he ought to be held accountable for orchestrating the deaths of Josip Reihl-Kir and Ante Paradžik, as those killings bear all the hallmarks of a classic intelligence agency hit.
Rather than accusing people of imaginary atrocities or non-existent "camps," one photo clearly shows they were nothing more than high-end, five-star hotels.

Dennis Davis5 said:The Homeland War is sacred to us, but we have to admit certain crimes were state-sponsored since they were organized by the government itself. For instance, camps like Kerestinec, Lora, Dretelj, and Heliodrom...

Those weren't actually camps, but rather detention centers where the Geneva Convention was strictly upheld and detainees were treated humanely—with the exception of Dretelj, though that falls squarely on the shoulders of that specific center's commander.
The other three were as spotless as can be; compared to the places where Americans were held, whether by Mexicans or Muslims, those sites were essentially five-star hotels. When you weigh them against their own camps, even a detention center like Dretelj looks like a casual hostel, offering maybe one warm meal and two dry ones.

Jerry Robinson56 said:@ Carol Torres4

If I have caused you offense, I offer my sincere apologies.

post scriptum

Do not assume that your efforts go unappreciated or unrespected, but perhaps consider why someone might hold a differing opinion and remain as stubborn as a mule. You may not fully grasp the complexities of what transpired back then. You can see a modern parallel right now: the absolute silence surrounding the looting of America. Look at the sort of "individuals" who represent this country within the European Union—aside from the rare exceptions, of course. When conducting an analysis or an autopsy of what remains of our Homeland, one must examine both the micro and macro levels, looking at individual instances and the broader landscape simultaneously. And the origin is paramount. We all carry biases, and it is clear how one receives a more or less packaged response—whether appropriate or not—whenever they stray from the established path. It is never my intention to insult anyone; my goal is merely to hold a mirror up to them and their actions. This includes reflecting their own "weapons" back at them. What they perceive in that reflection depends entirely on their own intelligence and, primarily, their capacity for a wide smile. Avoid prejudice and mob mentality. Very little is ever truly as it appears. Try to look on the bright side of life.
If I have caused you offense, I offer my sincere apologies.

To write to you suggesting I would accept a punishment just to make you happy—well, wouldn't you be the one feeling satisfied, rather than me?
The immense effort you expend to prove you are right does not mean you are speaking or writing the truth, particularly when you attempt to twist words or provide completely erroneous translations. Be honest and admit that, regarding translation, it is painfully obvious that you, Carol Torres4, have erred several times, as you are clearly swallowing the rhetoric provided by that secretive amateur 004 /data known to the editorial staff/
. But let us proceed in order, please, one step at a time, and let the moderators deliberate. Believe me, the moderators on this political board are quite capable; I do not report anyone, but I respond to you using the very methods you employ. You simply receive a reflection of your own words and thoughts.

Carol Torres4 is complaining

Let us see how you intend to respond to this, should anyone among you dare to try.
I have formally reported the post above in which I am being:
1. insulted

Just provide a single example.

You should probably seek medical advice too. You really ought to visit your primary care physician, who can refer you to a specialist to figure out what's actually going on with you.
Because there is clearly an issue here, both with you and with the moderators who allow you to keep posting.
Not all moderators are as incompetent as those on the politics board, though; I noticed you were kicked off the science forum immediately. Clearly, that place is moderated by someone intelligent—someone who uses their brain for more than just a haircut, someone who doesn't bow to ideological standards and actually has some dignity, so they wouldn't tolerate your nonsense, your whining, your insults, your Ad Hominem attacks, and so on.

And by the way, don't bring my mother into this. That's cheap, man. I didn't even finish my thought, because a person needs a little motivation. But your mother certainly isn't that.

Now, go ahead and count down how quickly they'll decrypt this post, then the previous one, then the one before that—all because the criteria aren't applied equally.

Adam Collins4 said:Do you even have a shred of decency?

Go ahead, show me where you've ever left a post of, say, 100 words where 90% of it consisted of heavy-duty insults without being provoked...

Stuff like calling people Royalists, scumbags, sons of bitches, and so on...

And now you have the audacity to hide behind your screen and call me out for being insulting?

I’d say it's a disgrace, if shame were something this place could actually recognize...

And why are you coming after me again? It was supposedly because of you that I got that red card in the first place; I asked the moderator why he flagged me, and he told me it was because you complained, claiming you saw yourself in that post.
Look, if you managed to take my words personally, that's your psychological baggage to deal with, not mine, considering I wasn't targeting you specifically, but rather this guy here.

Since you’re the one who decided to start talking trash, I felt compelled to answer, especially since I've seen you defending types who back Veselin Šljivančanin and those specific verdicts, or posting about the victims in El Paso, only to have that same moderator scrub the posts.
Frankly, it makes no difference to me whether it's MC Ozy, MC Auclife, MC Fuck, or some other variation—are you all just different aliases for the same person or a group of people? It doesn't matter.
The core issue remains unchanged; everything stated there is 100% accurate, as painful as the truth may be. The difference is that people like you will never face reality because you're too blinded by the fanaticism used to defend your party's crimes, while simultaneously blowing every incident from the other side out of proportion.
No political party is paying me to hang around this forum twenty-four hours a day like you lot; I don't need this place, nor am I dependent on it.
I remember telling you once that I was leaving this forum, and suddenly everyone started acting like children—calling me a coward, saying I was running away (of course, they only said that after I had already walked out, and naturally, without any official sanction).

Honestly, you should probably see a doctor and seek some help, because you seem genuinely unwell. I have no interest in wrestling with the mentally ill.
Beyond that, you're irrelevant to me; I don't read your stuff, and you can ask the moderators themselves how long I've actually kept you on my ignore list just so I don't have to endure your senseless nonsense that lacks even a hint of common sense.

It’s been sixteen days since October 22nd, and here we are on November 7th, yet not a single moderator or administrator has seen fit to address my questions—though, truthfully, I suspect they haven't responded because there simply aren't any answers to give.
This silence serves as the ultimate indictment of your character and the sheer inconsistency of your moderation standards.
I encourage anyone to step in and read this thread, as it provides a perfect, unvarnished reflection of exactly who you are and how this place truly operates.

I’m going to take a moment to dismantle the lies, insults, and manipulations scattered throughout this post, which should make it perfectly clear why I felt compelled to report it in the first place.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Regrettably, this discussion will require me to address specific points piecemeal, as the level of falsehood, deception, obstructionism, and sheer ignorance displayed by Carol Torres4 increases with every single post. The infantile nature of his conclusions is nothing short of fanatically absurd. It is pure, frenetic delusion.

To begin, what does it mean to locate? What is a location? You have the audacity to claim that "locating" isn't an American word, and apparently, even uncovering is a foreign concept to you.
There is a video where Vladimir Šeks explicitly states exactly what needs to happen to resolve the issue regarding Ante Gotovina.
The plan was essentially: "We won't let our generals fall."
Simply put, to locate means to identify the position or the site where an object or subject resides.
Where is the difficulty for you there? Are you truly unable to grasp how the same thing can be expressed using American terminology? Do try to answer.
I wager you won't be able to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_t-Z_2J2A ... what exactly did Šeks fail to say here?

You suggest that Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is patently false. Responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that these acts occurred, but it was never clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scenes of the crimes. Blaškić held responsibility only because—and I'll say this plainly—those above him, specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak, were washing their hands of the matter.

-your quote-

UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMS the condemning verdict delivered to the appellant:
1) regarding point 15 based on article 7(3) of the statute for criminal acts committed,
2) regarding point 16 based on article 7(1) of the statute concerning orders to utilize protected persons for the construction of military installations, and
3) regarding point 19 based on article 7(1) of the statute for inhumane treatment of detainees through the use of human shields.

I honestly cannot fathom how much of an idiot one can be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence for Blaškić. I assume, as is your custom, that you have fragmented information taken out of context, once again demonstrating the typical operating procedure of a Harmon. It is pathetic and wretched.

Upon Stjepan Mason taking power, secret documents were uncovered that Franjo Harmon had kept hidden—documents that clearly indicate a parallel chain of command used to commit war crimes under the direct political umbrella of Franjo Harmon. Franjo Harmon prevented Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which resulted in Ante Gotovina being singled out.

Go ahead and cite the specific sentences that lead you to conclude that Mason accused Blaškić of non-existent crimes. Please, refrain from translating, as you have already demonstrated a lack of elementary English proficiency, which leads you into frequent delusions.
One should remember—you were the one who posted this link yourself, yet you clearly haven't read it (or perhaps your English will improve later):

That is all for now, though I see little point in the moderators wasting their time on such nonsense, just as "the two of us" are doing.
Lies will not get you far; they will only result in you leaving this forum in disgrace.

P.S. Regarding the colored text, I always have the link ready at the moment of writing. If, by some chance, one is omitted, just ask, and it will be posted within moments—provided it hasn't vanished due to some higher power.

He claims I’m lying, yet he can't point to a single falsehood. Instead, he just resorts to lying himself.
He calls it deception, which is really just a polite way of saying lying.
He accuses me of obstruction, even though everyone on this forum knows he’s the one who obstructs every conversation he joins.
He claims he doesn't know me, but he hasn't demonstrated any actual knowledge either.
Essentially, his entire argument is just a series of Ad Hominem attacks without a shred of substance.
Then there’s the mention of my "infantile conclusions" being "fantastically fanatical." Once again, he offers no coherent reasoning, making it obvious that his only goal is to insult me.
And then he tosses out "frenetic delusion." 😁
Just imagine if I were to write to one of your little internet celebrities, or if I posted on Edge or Cuki calling them a "frenetic delusion" or "paranoid schizophrenia"—or any other psychiatric diagnosis. How many points would I get? Would I be flagged for "insulting users," hit with 100 points for "gross trolling," or would they just skip the formalities and slap me with 500 points for "hate speech"?

To start with, what does it mean to locate? This guy claims it isn't an American word, and apparently, uncovering is also a foreign concept to him.
There is a video where Vladimir Šeks clearly explains what needs to happen to resolve the situation regarding Ante Gotovina.
The plan is "We won't let our generals fall."
So, to locate means to uncover a position or find the place where an object or subject resides.
Where is the problem here? Can you not grasp that the same thing can be expressed using different American terms? Try answering that.
I bet you can't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_t-Z_2J2A ... tell me, what did Šeks fail to say?

This is the first example of how my words are being twisted. I stated—and this can easily be verified right here in this thread—that Šeks never actually used the word "locate," and that was it.
He tries to argue against that undeniable fact by providing a video link that proves Šeks didn't say the word "locate."
Therefore, I am correct; I told the truth, while he twists that truth, dumps a pile of spam, and drags in more insults just to end up doing what? Posting a link that confirms exactly what I said was the plain truth.
He claims Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is completely wrong. The responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that the acts took place, but it wasn't clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scene. Blaškić was held responsible simply because the higher-ups—specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak—were essentially washing their hands of it.

-quoting you-

CONFIRMS the unanimous, condemnatory verdict handed down to the appellant:
1) regarding point 15 based on Article 7(3) of the Statute for crimes committed in relation to unlawful confinement in relevant detention facilities,
2) regarding point 16 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for ordering the use of protected persons for the construction of military installations, and
3) regarding point 19 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for inhumane treatment of detainees involving their use as human shields.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how much of an idiot someone has to be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence... for Tihomir Blaškić.

This is a textbook example of twisting someone's words, because that isn't what I wrote. First, they snatched a single fragment from my post and used it to build a sentence about a 45-year prison term—something I never even mentioned in my original post. Here is my actual entry, for anyone who cares to check:

Look, I provided a link to the official Hague court website containing Stjepan Mason's testimony so that any literate person could spend thirty seconds verifying if my summary of his testimony was accurate. It’s not rocket science.
After that, I wrote:
And now, the final verdict against Blaškić, dispositive section, page 308.
I specifically bolded the word "final" just to make it clear we aren't talking about some preliminary ruling where Blaškić got 45 years, but rather the final judgment where he received nine years—essentially three years for each specific point. And when it comes to those three points, Mason is implicated in two of them; as the prosecutor's introduction states, he testified regarding the circumstances mentioned in counts 15 and 19 of the indictment.
It is perfectly transparent that they falsified my post, distorted its entire meaning, and then tried to argue with that fabrication. Naturally, instead of an actual argument, they just resorted to a barrage of insults:

I assume, in your usual fashion, that you've taken things out of context again, once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate. Pathetic and miserable.

It can't be "out of context" when I provided links to both Mason's testimony and the final verdict for Blaškić, allowing anyone to verify the context themselves. This is just a blatant lie followed by an insult: "once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate."
If I had behaved this way, I would have been told I was acting like a typical communist, a hardline partisan, or a radical leftist, and I would have been promptly slapped with a red card. That usually happens after I find a lie and convincingly debunk it, not after I misrepresent someone else's words, change their meaning, falsely accuse them of lacking context (when I actually provided the links), and then attack their truths with lies and vitriol.
Instead, I targeted a lie, used links and evidence to show the truth, and then slapped on a label, inevitably earning a red card.
So, here is yet another glaring piece of evidence that the rules aren't applied equally here.

With Stjepan Mason taking power, those classified documents that Franjo Harmon kept under wraps are finally coming to light, clearly pointing toward a shadow chain of command where war crimes were carried out right under Franjo Harmon's nose. It was actually Franjo Harmon who blocked Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which is exactly why Ante Gotovina ended up in such a mess.

http://www.time.com/article/10412/...asili-blaskica

It’s just more of the same—a repetitive cycle of debunked lies that I honestly can't be bothered to revisit, though it is quite telling; much like how this same user keeps lying all over these boards about not being acquitted by the UZP in the final ruling for Operation Storm.
You really ought to look in a mirror.

Why don't you actually cite the specific sentences where you claim Mason accused Tihomir Blaškić of non-existent crimes? Don't bother translating, because your failure to grasp basic English has clearly led you down a path of constant delusion.

So, once again, instead of attempting to prove a point, we resort to Ad Hominem attacks, claiming I "don't know English," yet they can't even point out where my translation went wrong. And for anyone here who actually knows the language, feel free to check this post where I provided my translation; since all the testimony transcripts are in English, you can verify it for yourselves.
Ultimately, it's nothing more than standard trolling.

It's worth remembering—you posted this link yourself, even if you didn't bother reading it or understanding the English:

Just off-topic spam that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I suppose that’s another 10 points for you, assuming you could actually manage to follow the rules you helped create.

That should be enough to start with, though I truly fail to see why the moderators waste their breath on nonsense, much like the two of us.
Lies won't get you far, other than leading you to leave this forum in disgrace.

More insults, then. As our little breakdown has shown, not a single one of these alleged "lies" has been proven, let alone refuted.

The summary is simple: it starts with insults and armchair psychiatric diagnoses, moves into someone editing my posts twice to change the meaning, followed by more insults, then trolling, then spam, and finally, a few more insults to wrap things up.
And all of this is directed straight at me. Meanwhile, I somehow receive, I repeat, 45 points for this post:

In which I don't even mention a single name, yet I am awarded 45 points because the moderator assumes I'm targeting someone. They seem to think that because I didn't explicitly name them, I was still implying it, even though I never forced that narrative. I wrote a response filled with nothing but raw facts and a mountain of links, only to have the entire post deleted.
Why was that post removed?
So, I get a warning based on mere suspicion, I get attacked and insulted when I try to respond to an enrollment, and then when I provide a convincing argument backed by evidence, that gets wiped away too.
And you honestly claim to apply the same standards? Do you have any shred of shame left?

Jerry Robinson56 said:Regrettably, this discussion will require me to address specific points piecemeal, as the level of falsehood, deception, obstructionism, and sheer ignorance displayed by Carol Torres4 increases with every single post. The infantile nature of his conclusions is nothing short of fanatically absurd. It is pure, frenetic delusion.

To begin, what does it mean to locate? What is a location? You have the audacity to claim that "locating" isn't an American word, and apparently, even uncovering is a foreign concept to you.
There is a video where Vladimir Šeks explicitly states exactly what needs to happen to resolve the issue regarding Ante Gotovina.
The plan was essentially: "We won't let our generals fall."
Simply put, to locate means to identify the position or the site where an object or subject resides.
Where is the difficulty for you there? Are you truly unable to grasp how the same thing can be expressed using American terminology? Do try to answer.
I wager you won't be able to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_t-Z_2J2A ... what exactly did Šeks fail to say here?

You suggest that Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is patently false. Responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that these acts occurred, but it was never clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scenes of the crimes. Blaškić held responsibility only because—and I'll say this plainly—those above him, specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak, were washing their hands of the matter.

-your quote-

UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMS the condemning verdict delivered to the appellant:
1) regarding point 15 based on article 7(3) of the statute for criminal acts committed,
2) regarding point 16 based on article 7(1) of the statute concerning orders to utilize protected persons for the construction of military installations, and
3) regarding point 19 based on article 7(1) of the statute for inhumane treatment of detainees through the use of human shields.

I honestly cannot fathom how much of an idiot one can be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence for Blaškić. I assume, as is your custom, that you have fragmented information taken out of context, once again demonstrating the typical operating procedure of a Harmon. It is pathetic and wretched.

Upon Stjepan Mason taking power, secret documents were uncovered that Franjo Harmon had kept hidden—documents that clearly indicate a parallel chain of command used to commit war crimes under the direct political umbrella of Franjo Harmon. Franjo Harmon prevented Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which resulted in Ante Gotovina being singled out.

Go ahead and cite the specific sentences that lead you to conclude that Mason accused Blaškić of non-existent crimes. Please, refrain from translating, as you have already demonstrated a lack of elementary English proficiency, which leads you into frequent delusions.
One should remember—you were the one who posted this link yourself, yet you clearly haven't read it (or perhaps your English will improve later):

That is all for now, though I see little point in the moderators wasting their time on such nonsense, just as "the two of us" are doing.
Lies will not get you far; they will only result in you leaving this forum in disgrace.

P.S. Regarding the colored text, I always have the link ready at the moment of writing. If, by some chance, one is omitted, just ask, and it will be posted within moments—provided it hasn't vanished due to some higher power.

Let's see if anyone here actually dares to respond to this.
I made sure to formally report the post above where I am being:
1. insulted
2. misrepresented, as they are twisting my actual words and arguing against things I never even said—which, if I recall correctly, is a direct violation of the forum rules.

Yet, there are no consequences. For the sake of perspective, moderator Charles Fox10 docked me 45 points for "insulting users" based on this specific post:

So tell me, Charles Fox10, and all of you watching, do you really have the nerve to claim your standards are consistent?
I can already guess the excuse coming my way. It’ll probably be something like, "Why are you bringing this up a month after the fact?"
The reality is that if I respond immediately, I get hit with excuses like, "I was away for the weekend," "I was traveling," "I was at a family wedding," or simply, "I don't spend twenty-four hours a day scrolling through these threads."
In this instance, a month after the post and two weeks after the initial report is more than enough time to account for all those life interruptions.
In that previous post where I was slapped with a 45-point penalty for "insulting users," I didn't mention a single name or handle; I wasn't attacking anyone specifically, only those who might see themselves reflected in the commentary. It was a general observation, yet I received a red card simply because Charles Fox10 decided I was targeting someone in particular. There was no evidence, just a desire to flex some disciplinary muscle because nobody seems to have an answer for my arguments.
Now, look at the post I just reported. My username is called out in the very first sentence, followed by a barrage of Ad Hominem attacks, then a complete distortion of what I wrote in my last two entries. They change my meaning entirely and continue the insults without ever actually addressing the substance of what was said.

And you still intend to tell me that your criteria are uniform? Honestly, have you no shame?

Charles Fox10 said:

Look, let’s clear up that myth—that little lie Jerry Robinson56 doesn't even have the nerve to repeat anymore.

Not everyone is on your side, you know.

So, what exactly are you expecting now?

And what about you? Are you expecting me to dig up all those old threads where this individual keeps lying about how Stjepan Mason's testimony cleared Tihomir Blaškić?
I’ve already laid out the facts in my previous post, providing arguments that simply cannot be refuted.
At the end of the day, someone can call me a liar, but only if they can actually dismantle the logic I've presented. They can call me an idiot, provided they have the proof to back it up. They could even claim my father was a war criminal, if they had the evidence to show it. But here, there isn't a shred of proof to be found.

I don't expect anything more from you or people like you, other than another arbitrary 500 points—which you clearly haven't earned—followed by another 500, because apparently, you lack the capacity to hand out 1,000 points at once, though we both know why that is.
When people throw these accusations at me without a single supporting argument or a verifiable source, I tend to meet them with the same level of scrutiny; feel free to keep attacking me personally, since it seems to be the only tool left in your kit.

If you truly believe that this behavior is going to improve the quality of this forum, then I wish you the best of luck with that...

Charles Fox10 said:Your archives are impressive. To give you a proper answer, I'd have to dig through old records I don't keep—since that isn't my habit—so I'll stick to what I already wrote.

You have your answer to the question; whether you're satisfied with it is another matter entirely.

It’s an interesting thing to consider.😁

Here is my latest attempt at this: I’ll present a single thesis designed to dismantle a common narrative, backing my claims with precise, verifiable references pulled directly from the official website of The Hague. I will make sure to specify exactly where anyone can find this information, so even the most skeptical reader could verify it all for themselves in under two minutes.

After all that effort, I’m met with a response that lacks even a single shred of actual evidence; they don't bother contesting a single point I made, opting instead to simply recycle the same old lies that my previous post had already thoroughly dismantled.

The first sentence.
I suppose you aren't exactly counting everyone in your favor.

It’s just a blatant Ad Hominem attack. He’s clearly trying to imply I lack intelligence, though, to be fair, I don't view every slight as mere trolling—only when someone actually manages to present an argument stronger than my own. In this case, however, there isn't a single shred of logic behind the insult; it's nothing more than a disorganized heap of nonsense.

And so it all comes down to this one single sentence:

Be honest with yourself; you’re more than capable of pulling this off.

He suggests I'm lying, yet he hasn't produced a shred of evidence to support that claim. It hardly matters how much he tries to wrap his accusations in fine print; he called me a liar and an idiot to my face, but he hasn't proven a single thing.

The post has been flagged, so we shall wait and see if the points we’ve been discussing here actually hold any water.

Paul Green31 said:And what about the clones of those permabanned users? They should get the boot too, but nobody says a word—especially when they aren't on the right. 😉

He’s managed to spawn at least five clones on this forum by now, yet nothing can save him from that final, binding verdict from The Hague; honestly, given how much he thrived on provocation and playing the victim after the initial ruling, the mods should have banned him and his entire network of imitators a long time ago.
I'll just move that to the ignore list; honestly, people like him actually do us a favor in the long run. I find myself much more interested in those who possess actual intelligence and cunning, rather than the ones who, lacking any real capacity for argumentation, simply resort to the same tired attempts at provocation—though I suspect they’ll find that tactic increasingly difficult to pull off from now on.

Charles Fox10 said:The system works through moderator oversight and user reports; that’s just how it is. You’re digging up posts from 2011—which doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but dragging them out here in 2013 to claim you're being unfairly insulted, while labeling others as provocateurs or ignorant, simply isn't a good look.

And who exactly is being accused of "locating" you or Vladimir Šeks? He said he wanted to "uncover" things; is the issue really with his wording or the actual meaning behind it?

I’ve never done a formal analysis, but I’d venture to say that on days when the Politics PDF sees over 1,000 posts on dozens of topics, expecting perfection is a tall order. If a post rubs you the wrong way, just report it. Once 24 hours have passed, reach out to one of us via PM to ask about it, and you’ll surely get a solid answer.

But does it count if those 2011 posts were actually reported back in 2011?
For instance, I reported these three specific posts back then, and absolutely nothing came of it.
So, I decided to bring it up on the main board.

And guess who gave me the response?

Meanwhile, this individual ended up getting banned for something else entirely, and you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was somehow breaking rules by linking to posts from banned users.
That was the end of it. And no, I’m not going to start digging up all the grievances I collected while I was under a ban myself.

It seems I can't even get an answer to the most fundamental question here, which is really the heart of the matter: is it acceptable to insult the deceased, regardless of their political leanings?

granitefalcon26 said:Carol Torres4, look, you've been around this forum for a long time. 😉
Don't let them get under your skin. Some people are just looking for a reaction so they can get you banned. You know how the game is played here. No trolling, no insults, and definitely no threats. If someone says something that bothers you, just report it. And if the mods don't take action, start a thread right here so everyone can see what's going on. 😉

That’s fine, and it’s a perfectly legitimate tactic, but it shouldn't be acceptable for someone to repeatedly hurl things at me—like the nonsense I posted above—calling me an ignoramus, a provocateur, a fool, a partisan hack, or a smear artist, all while offering arguments far weaker than my own.

It's unacceptable that we discuss the Fall of Posavina, where I present a contemporary document complete with a class number, official seal, and the signature of the CIA Chief, Josip Perković, only to be countered by someone citing a snippet from Time Magazine, quoting a man responsible for the Fall of Posavina who has every reason to lie and shift his blame onto others. It's a lower tier of argument, wrapped in a layer of cheap provocations and mindless trolling.
Then, when I report those three posts above, nothing happens. But if I strike back in kind, the sanctions are immediate. Meanwhile, those original posts stay up without any consequence. If I were to call someone an idiot directly—a simple Ad Hominem—there’s no chance it wouldn't result in 45 points being docked for "insulting a forum member."

And this all stems from some perception that I’m a right-winger, even though anyone who has actually followed my writing can see that I spend most of my time tearing apart the extreme right. Nothing gets to me quite like the sheer volume of political illiteracy, particularly within right-wing circles.
I maintain that the right is intellectually inferior to the left, but it irritates me when they have a valid point yet find themselves powerless because the left always outmaneuvers them in debate. In those moments, I almost feel for them, so I tell them: "this is how you should handle it." That’s really what I do most on this forum, and from that, someone concluded I’m a conservative. I’m not. My political stance sits somewhere between the ideals of Franjo Harmon and Stjepan Radić—a centrist position aiming to unite all healthy, rational, and moderate forces. I want us to work toward the betterment of the Homeland, pulling ourselves out of disgrace and building an America where every human being can live a satisfied life, all while minimizing the influence of both the extreme left and the extreme right. That is achievable by strengthening the center—both left and right—through education and encouraging people to pick up a book instead of commenting on things they clearly don't understand, convinced they are experts.
I enjoy dismantling myths. For instance, that myth about "identify, locate, arrest, and transfer," where I proved that the word "locate" wasn't even used in that context.

That seems to be what gets under people's skin the most—when they take something as an absolute truth, whether they are on the left or the right, and I step in to shatter that illusion. I like diving beneath the surface, something some refuse to do and most are incapable of doing. I suspect that is why I struggle on this forum, not because of some ideological leaning that no one can truly pin down anyway; after all, the way I think politically won't be mainstream here for another 50 or 100 years. It's a perspective I inherited from my grandfather, a veteran of the resistance...

Here are a few more examples of posts that aren't just cardboard cutouts, even though it's pretty obvious what's actually going on here.
I suppose I should have expected this kind of predictable reaction from someone like Charles Fox10, given how predictably the pieces always fall into place once you look closely at the history. It’s almost wearying to watch the same old arguments resurface, much like seeing an old, familiar shadow stretch across a room just when you thought the light had finally changed.

Could you please send over the link to your writing? It seems to me that these claims aren't just inaccurate, they're bordering on pure paranoia.
You already had that thread about Stjepan Mason, where you clearly demonstrated what you're made of. A snitch, a sycophant, and a provocateur. It’s much the same situation here.

Are we really going to dwell on these "insinuations"? It all happens in the same post:

I find myself wondering how you can possibly maintain any sense of dignity, knowing full well that people are reading this. Those who actually know the truth about your identity usually don't bother asking.

I consistently find myself being handed red cards for saying things like this, all under the guise of preventing "insinuation."

Aside from that, this post contains the following:

Don't go overestimating yourself; the road to actually becoming something is much longer than you think. Carol Torres4 is quite foolish.

I would like to request that the moderators take a more "public" approach to monitoring certain "friends" on this forum—individuals who spend their entire time peddling lies and half-truths, effectively stifling any chance of actual debate. They tend to push everyone toward extreme positions by constantly manipulating the conversation with their baseless claims.
Just a provocateur and someone who clearly hasn't done their homework..

Charles Fox10 Carol Torres4 said:That’s more or less how my colleague put it.

That response of yours feels incredibly thin. What I actually relayed to you from your colleagues was regarding the specific location where Boris Šprem passed away.

I can't help but wonder what the deal is with Ivan Milas.

I suppose I should have expected this kind of predictable maneuvering from the usual suspects. It feels like watching the same tired political drama play out on a loop, where everyone knows the script but pretends to be surprised by the twists. One can't help but feel a certain weariness when you realize how little actually changes behind the scenes of our national discourse.

I can't help but wonder what exactly is going on with Smiljko Šagolj lately.

I've been sitting here thinking about how much history repeats itself, especially when you look at the way people still argue over the legacy of the old guard. It’s a bit like watching a rerun of a political drama that everyone thought was canceled years ago, yet here we are, still dissecting the same tired grievances and legal battles. I remember sitting in a small café back in the day, listening to men twice my age debate the exact same nuances of military orders and courtroom dramas, realizing then that some wounds never truly scab over; they just become part of the landscape. There's a certain exhaustion that comes with watching the same names—like Ante Gotovina or Tihomir Blaškić—be dragged through the mud by different generations of pundits, all while pretending they're uncovering something new. It feels less like progress and more like a slow, rhythmic circling of the drain.

And finally, what is the current status regarding Zvone Bušić?

Is it really acceptable to label someone a "terrorist," a "war instigator," or some other derogatory term just because they happened to be the reason this entire thread was opened following their passing?

Is anyone around? I find myself wondering where the line actually sits regarding hate speech—is it defined by someone gloating over a death, or does it become hate speech when you call them out for that exact behavior? It feels like my words are constantly being twisted; when I say "we need to get rid of them," people project their own darkest intentions onto me. When I used the word "resolve," I meant removing them from the media cycle or pushing them to the sidelines of politics, not anything as visceral as violence. I wasn't thinking of the things my grandfather told me about what my uncle did during his time in the military intelligence services—stories so grim they effectively severed him from our entire family. My grandfather was a veteran himself, but he never crossed those lines. Then there was my other uncle, who joined the extremist youth movements, and his older brother actually intended to kill him for it. My grandfather, despite everything, stepped in and managed to get him safely to Germany just in time. He had this way of sensing how things would play out before they even happened, which allowed my younger uncle to slip across the border well before the main forces began their retreat toward Austria.

So, what exactly qualifies as "hate speech" these days? Does it mean we aren't allowed to speak our minds or even use harsh language about someone who has just passed away? It seems there is a growing demand for a single, narrow narrative, where anyone holding a different perspective—for instance, those who refuse to label Zvone Bušić a terrorist—is immediately cast aside. The history isn't nearly as black and white as certain people would have us believe. Take the case of Smiljko Šagolj; his efforts to expose the atrocities committed against Americans were branded as war incitement. It leads one to wonder if he was expected to simply stay silent about those crimes just to be considered an "objective reporter" instead of a provocateur.

To me, the true terrorism lies in that written statement signed by Goran Šprem, which served only to justify Stjepan Mason's shameful lie regarding Operation Maslenica; that weighs far heavier on my conscience than Zvone Bušić hijacking an airplane. It seems you all struggle to grasp the essence of democracy—the simple fact that I am entitled to hold this perspective, regardless of whether you find it erroneous. Even if my view is flawed, it remains mine, and frankly, I found that statement—which has somehow vanished from the internet, by the way—far more offensive than the actions of Zvone Bušić, whom, interestingly enough, some individuals from that hijacked plane actually visited in prison, according to Jadranka Jureško-Kero in today’s print edition of USA Today.

Is anyone even home?

Does anyone here actually comprehend what I am discussing or what I am asking you?

Charles Fox10 said:1. This is roughly how a colleague put it:

Any snarky, cynical, or similar remarks regarding the passing of Boris Šprem will be appropriately "rewarded."

2. Obviously, you can say what you want; nobody's going to stop you.

3. If we see it or if someone reports it, we’ll step in.

4. If you're planning on turning this into an Ad Hominem debate, don't bother. But if you have other ideas within the current threads, that's fine.

5. Interesting, considering I just did exactly that.

Here’s an example that hits close to home.
I’m standing my ground that Vladimir Šeks never actually used the word "locate"—and I have the link to prove he said "uncover" instead—yet people insist on misattributing the quote to him.

A few posts later, some guy jumps in, recycles my own link, and tries to lecture me on why my conclusion is wrong, treating me like some sort of amateur.

Honestly, you could probably hand this user ten points for off-topic spam before even finishing the first paragraph; his entire purpose seems to be derailing conversations.
Beyond that, he’s a textbook troll who hasn't contributed a single constructive thought to this board. He relies entirely on the "argument from weak authority," constantly pivoting to insults—calling me ignorant or a fool—or using that weirdly condescending tactic of calling me his "friend," which is just another layer of provocation.
It's absurd. If I were to tell him that I'm certainly not his friend, but that I used to be quite close with his mother, and if he chooses to call us friends based on that, fine—but if I categorize people like him as either family or enemies, would I really face disciplinary action for it?

Just look at my recent threads; he always retreats to those flimsy arguments, inevitably ending with an insult or a jab.

Anyway, decide what's most efficient here and let me know. I'm going to go watch a volleyball match...

So, here you go—take a good look and decide for yourselves who’s actually lying, who’s just trolling, and who’s actually bringing something real to the table.

It doesn't much matter in the end; I don't plan on sticking around this forum for much longer anyway. Honestly, I’m just exhausted by the constant attempts at provocation from people whose grasp of logic wouldn't pass a middle school exam, let alone hold up against my own arguments. It’s wearying to watch them lash out without any consequence, only to have the moderators swoop in with "excessive shelling" the moment I finally lose my patience and give them a taste of their own medicine.

I suppose all I need to ask is what you actually want from this space: do you want the kind of reasoned discourse I try to provide, or do you prefer the trolls who attack everything except the actual points being made? Do you want a forum built on substantiated debate where every claim is backed by a link or a source, or would you rather have a glorified chat room filled with baseless claims and zero accountability?

Look, I have no interest in picking fights with anyone, but I do expect some level of protection when I’m the one being targeted. If the moderation actually worked to protect everyone equally, I wouldn't be forced to take matters into my own hands, nor would I find myself getting penalized for the exact same behavior that others get away with every single day.

Just weigh up whatever serves your interests best and let me know...

Since none of you seem inclined to offer a response, I’ll just keep scribbling away here so I don't feel like my time is being entirely wasted; feel free to delete my posts or issue a ban if my presence bothers you too much.

I find myself wondering, above all else, whether it is ever truly appropriate to celebrate when someone passes away—regardless of their political leanings or how others might perceive those views—even if it is just for those fleeting few days following a death, whether by natural causes, an accident, or suicide.

Take the passing of the Speaker of the House, Boris Šprem, for instance; even though I could have certainly put together a rather pointed argument regarding his flaws, the thought of doing so never even crossed my mind.
And that is precisely why I find myself in agreement with the moderator, Edge; before he passed, he offered a sentiment that truly resonated with me.

The entire article in USA Today is absolute nonsense, and frankly, I think the world would be a better place if people showed just a little more humanity. Even when dealing with politicians who hold an entirely different worldview, one finds that the patterns remain predictably unchanged.

I also find myself in agreement with the moderator, Closeau, who, on the day of the passing, felt compelled to reiterate...

Any snarky, cynical, or otherwise disrespectful remarks regarding the passing of Boris Šprem will be met with appropriate consequences.

Showing a modicum of respect is really just a matter of basic decency and having a shred of culture.If you feel the need to criticize Boris Šprem's work, there are plenty of other topics and threads where you can do so that aren't centered on his passing.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before we found ourselves staring down the barrel of this particular historical repetition. Looking back at how things unfolded during Operation Storm, one can't help but feel a sense of weary déjà vu regarding the political maneuvering that always seems to follow such massive shifts in the landscape.

I find myself wondering why anyone would bother paying respects to someone they fundamentally disagreed with, let alone someone who personally slighted me. I still remember when she signed that statement as a high-ranking official in Stjepan Mason’s office, using the cheapest possible political spins and blatant falsehoods to back up Mason's lies regarding Operation Maslenica. They had the audacity to claim we lost 185 people without gaining an inch of ground, all in a transparent attempt to smear General Ante Gotovina, who led that liberating military operation alongside General Ante Bobetko.
I could have easily countered that with a solid, reasoned argument, but I chose not to, primarily for the exact reasons Edge and Costea pointed out; I still possess a shred of basic decency and the kind of upbringing that teaches you when a conversation simply isn't worth the breath.

I've spent enough years watching the political machinery grind people down to realize that when high-level officials like Stjepan Mason start making noise, it’s rarely about justice and almost always about the next power play. It reminds me of those long, rainy afternoons back in D.C. when you'd sit in a dim cafe and watch the pundits dissect scandals that were already decided behind closed doors months prior. There's a certain exhaustion that comes with seeing the same patterns of blame and deflection repeat themselves through every administration.

My position remains unchanged, and if you follow the link within this one, you'll find another thread regarding the passing of Ivan Milas; it serves as a rather transparent demonstration of how differently the moderators handle the death of someone perceived as "leftist" versus someone viewed as "rightist."

I find myself wondering why, in a thread dedicated to the tragic passing of Zvone Bušić, there is such an unrestrained license for people to revel in someone's death—even when, as Edge so aptly put it, he was merely a "politician from a different world."

What exactly qualifies as "hate speech" these days? It seems like the goalposts move every single week.

Is it truly considered "hate speech" when someone openly mocks the death of others, or does that definition shift when someone like me decides to strike back at those who find joy in such tragedies?

And now we arrive at the inevitable red card—the one carrying a heavy 500-point penalty for "hate speech." It’s becoming quite the routine, isn't it?

I suppose it was only a matter of time before we started circling back to this particular mess, though I find myself wondering if anyone actually expects a different outcome this time around. It feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck where the passengers have already accepted their fate, sitting there quietly while the tracks vanish beneath them.

If I weren't being lied to right here, and if that person actually were me—even assuming I had intentionally written a post mocking someone's death—there's no way they would have slapped me with a 500-point penalty. In reality, they wouldn't even get a strike at all; and even if they did, it would have been a mere 35 or 45 points for trolling or insulting a fellow user.
I could easily drop twenty more posts right here where people launch these vitriolic attacks against me—not because I’m celebrating some passing, which is something I simply refuse to do, but because I’m busy dismantling lies and debunking myths using credible sources, hard evidence, and direct links. It’s a wearying cycle, watching those efforts receive absolutely zero recognition, let alone the 500 points they deserve.

I don't subscribe to the notion that there's some biased moderation team working overtime to push a "leftist" agenda while cracking down on the "right," nor do I believe I’ve racked up 500 points here because of such a bias. My refusal to recognize the term "hate speech" isn't an act of defiance for its own sake; rather, I view it as a convenient euphemism used to criminalize speech when one simply lacks the intellectual capacity to counter an argument—a sentiment I recall Powerlock once expressed quite poignantly when noting that hate, much like love, is a fundamental human emotion that can be interpreted in infinite ways, yet shouldn't be treated as a legal offense. For that same reason, I have never accepted being labeled a "right-winger," regardless of how many people try to pin that identity on me, as it says more about their own perceptions than it does about my actual convictions.
To make matters worse, not even seven days ago, I found myself facing yet another ban for "hate speech," all because I decided to take a sharp, necessary aim at the right wing.

Let’s be honest: I suppose I should just own up to the fact that my previous card was handed out without me ever asking for it to be rebranded as "crude trolling." I can readily admit that I’ve earned every bit of it here—all five hundred points, for that matter—simply because I knowingly stepped outside the forum's rules. Much like my last post where I was slapped with 500 points for "hate speech," everything I wrote remains true, save for one single point from my earlier thread regarding Karamarko, which I simply cannot substantiate, so I’ll concede that particular part.

If you think Pizvo is just some bottom-tier troll who spends his days glorifying everything negative about our society—or suggesting we purge such elements from politics, business, the media, and even this forum (and I certainly wasn't implying anything violent)—then you’ve missed the mark entirely. From where I’m sitting, it feels like the opposite is true: it seems like you all are actually trying to get rid of me. Everything I wrote in that previous post was simply directed at Pizvo. You’re nothing more than a demagogue who has mastered the dark art of intelligence agency inversion, and now you spend your days on this forum relentlessly lying, planting falsehoods, and spinning fabrications. I could prove my point using any single post from my history, though I would much prefer to settle it right here, through this one alone.

It is a peculiar kind of theater where one defends the indefensible, weaving together at least seven massive lies, inversions, and fabricated terms—all of which could be dismantled using twenty-five distinct connections to various sources. I find myself pointing to this specific post as a perfect specimen of the modus operandi seen around here; it’s just one more instance of someone who simply couldn't keep the venom off their tongue, failing even the basic decency of waiting until a man is laid to rest before turning on his memory.

I have never considered myself a leftist or a right-winger; I am simply someone who finds a quiet satisfaction in dismantling myths and delusions, whether they originate from the left or the right. On that note, if I may be so bold, I would love the opportunity to use some actual evidence and logical connections to deconstruct a certain figure often hailed as an icon of the American right—Ljubo Česić Rojs. To me, he represents a profound kind of political illiteracy, the sort that fuels unnecessary tensions in places like El Paso, ultimately leaving both the people and the nation to suffer the consequences. I suppose I could also use this as a chance to offer a basic primer on how the American political system actually functions, a subject that at least 80% of the population—not just those on this forum—clearly lacks even a fundamental understanding of.

Looking back at the discussions surrounding the trials in The Hague regarding Operation Storm, there were three primary threads that dominated the conversation: first, the defense of our generals, then the period of those invalid verdicts, and finally, the transition from discussing final judgments to the eventual acquittal of Generals Ante Gotovina and Ante Gotovina—essentially moving from individual cases to a collective focus on their exoneration. I also find myself wondering why, given that there are at least five separate threads covering the enforcement of EU mandates and the Perković legislation, we haven't simply consolidated them into a single, comprehensive topic like "Perković Legislation - General Overview."
The initial thread regarding the trial of the generals managed to pull in over 100,000 views.
That other thread managed to pull in over 250,000 views.
The third thread managed to pull in over 450,000 views.

Or, just flip to the front page of the Politics PDF:

You’ll eventually notice that the thread garnering the most views is always the one centered on the trial of those six Americans from Canada.

I suppose you can judge for yourselves just how much I’ve actually contributed to these discussions—and without any false modesty, I’d say my reasoning has held its own—at least until people start resorting to provocations, insults, and trolling. It seems that once someone realizes they can't actually dismantle my arguments with logic, they simply pivot to those cheaper tactics.
Either you decide that I’m someone lacking any real substance—just another user here peddling what you call "hate speech"—or you can simply issue a permanent ban or politely ask me to stop posting altogether; if it comes to that, I won't bother showing up again.
It’s really that simple.

Let me be perfectly clear about one thing: I am not appealing this ban. In fact, I’d prefer to keep it, as a fitting tribute to whoever decided to hand it to me in the first place. What I actually want is a straight answer to a few specific questions:

1. Does this forum permit the disparagement of the deceased—whether they passed away naturally, were killed, or took their own life—before they have even been laid to rest, regardless of their political leanings or ideology?

2. Am I actually allowed to participate here at all? It seems my primary handicap is that I don't belong to any faction; I'm not a member of a political party or some special interest group. Because I’ve secured the freedom to speak without being tethered to a side, I find myself able to call out lies whether they come from the left or the right. Is that an issue?

3. How do you intend to handle situations where, for instance, I discuss a topic related to The Hague and present an undeniable fact backed by an official link to the court's website, only to have someone dismiss me with a flimsy article from Time Magazine or a lower-tier publication, while simultaneously insulting my intelligence?

4. Will I be permitted to expose the falsehoods of the user whose posts led to my recent penalty? The situation arose because I stated I would no longer be posting here, which triggered a wave of misinformation regarding the Varivoda matter. If I cannot prove at least seven significant lies within that post, I will accept an immediate permanent ban. To be clear, I am prepared to provide no fewer than 25 links to various credible sources specifically to debunk the lies in that thread.

5. Why aren't all the discussions surrounding the European Union arrest warrants and the legislation colloquially known as the Lex-Perković consolidated into a single, comprehensive thread titled something like "The Lex-Perković Omnibus"?

coppermarlin13 said:i Did Carol Torres4 end up getting hit with those legal penalties? points I don't quite follow what you're getting at there. Could you clarify? That's just how it goes. It’s all just insults at this point. Me?

Dear Carol Torres4,

You have received an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: Insulting other forum members
-------

-------

This violation carries a 45-point penalty and could lead to a temporary suspension of your access until the term ends. Please be aware that more severe offenses are permanent.

Original Post:
I was browsing through some old threads on Reddit the other day, and I stumbled upon this particular discussion that really stuck with me. It’s one of those conversations that makes you realize how little has actually changed in the way people process history and conflict. There's a certain weight to these digital archives, isn't there? They serve as a quiet, often cynical reminder of our collective memory—or lack thereof.

Is someone actually insulting people on the forum now? Here is the original link: http://www.reddit.com/r/wow

I watched that video, and honestly, it just reinforces my growing sense of disillusionment with how we recount our history. It’s one of those moments where you realize how much the narrative shifts depending on who is holding the microphone, leaving the actual truth to gather dust in some forgotten archive.

That covers the second part; the first section was simply an allusion to that infamous incident back in 2001 at this very same location.

I was scrolling through some old archives today—remnants of a different era—and stumbled upon this piece from the *Miami Herald*. It’s one of those articles that pulls you right back into the heavy, suffocating tension of the early 2000s. Reading it now, everything feels so much more complicated than the headlines let on at the time. It really makes you wonder how much has actually changed since then.

Did you ever actually hear of irony, sarcasm, or satire? Or did someone just jump him like a group of Muslims attacking Predrag Lucić?

I suppose I’ve just been handed a red card—one that might actually end this whole thing if I decided to play hardball and lean heavily into my right to irony and sarcasm. But I won't. I hope you're satisfied, princess of this dead thread.😍