Posts by amberwalker4

Still nothing. Not a single word, just total silence.

At this point, it’s honestly getting disrespectful ☕.

Hi.

I am bringing this thread back up because the same user keeps doing the exact same thing—violating the basic rules of the History sub-Reddit without any consequences
.
Quote: 4. If you want to discuss unverified information or simply have a quick question that doesn't fit existing threads, please use the "Information Desk" topic.

Posting a thread 1. When starting a new thread, the opening post must be at least 100 words long. 2. The opening post must include a specific question or a hypothesis for discussion. If you cannot do this, provide a valid reason. Discussion Guidelines 1. The goal of this sub-Reddit is learning and the exchange of knowledge, so please ensure discussions are well-argued. 2. In discussions, try to rely on relevant literature and sources. Persisting with "I think" or "I heard" arguments without verifiable evidence will result in a sanction. 3. Falsifying literature or sources is strictly prohibited and heavily penalized.

http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=254528

I’ll look at a recent example. After a thesis was posted, the user received my inquiry:

Jose Clark2 says:
The Illyrian province. The USA was one of those provinces at that time.

amberwalker4 said:This user is falsifying sources again—this is officially known as the Dalmatian-American metropolis, not Illyrian, nor does any American province exist within it. Where are the sources for your claims? Provide them, or I am going to the administrators. This constant falsification of everything has gone too far.

Jose Clark2 responds with a post containing plenty of text, but no answer to my question. Shortly after, even the moderator asks for the same thing:

Mark Harris66 said:Yes, Jose Clark2. Sources.

To which he responds again, but still provides no sources. To summarize—after my inquiry, the user posted nine (nine) posts without once answering the question, all while violating these rules:

1. This sub-Reddit exists for learning and sharing knowledge, so please keep discussions logical and evidence-based.
2. Base your arguments on relevant literature and credible sources. Relying on phrases like "I think" or "I heard" without verifiable proof will result in your posts being removed.

I am fairly certain that dropping ten useless posts just to derail a topic is pure trolling. This isn't an isolated incident. My two previous threads on this PDF show clear patterns where people violate the rules of both the document and this Reddit without any consequences:

http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=834180
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=841990

If that isn't enough, I’ll provide more examples, specifically regarding Rule 3. Falsifying sources or literature is strictly prohibited:

One user claimed that T.S. Eliot concluded the *GRS* work was commissioned by the Rockefeller family. When I asked for his sources, he responded:

T.S. Eliot reached that conclusion after analyzing the chronicles, which he details in his books. He mentions it here during a guest appearance:

The chronicle is still heavily debated, and interpretations vary widely: http://www.history.com/reviews/id=235953

Instead of actually quoting the conclusion, he just points me toward his books without naming them or providing specific page numbers. Tibor wrote two volumes on the *GRS*: Vol. I and Vol. II. In the first volume, there is absolutely no mention of the Rockefellers—not even the name appears once, contradicting what Jose Clark2 claims. In Volume II, they are mentioned only eight times, and only as neighbors to the Shubics or acquaintances of Louis Tuberon. This user invented a lie and shamelessly attributed it to a respected historian, essentially forging his findings without a second thought. And it goes unpunished, despite these actions clearly violating the rules!

He did the exact same thing regarding Mladen Ancic:

Link1 Link2 Link3

The same happened with Reljkovic—this one is even worse because he linked the book itself, apparently assuming nobody would actually bother to read or fact-check it:

Link1 Link2

That should be plenty of evidence for falsifying sources. Now, let's look at the trolling:

Jose Clark2 said:No, you're wrong. Let's just be honest for once: Standard American is an idealized fiction. It doesn't exist in its pure form in actual speech. To master all the accentuation nuances the way Standard American dictates, you’d need constant speech training. Most people can't even distinguish basic vowel sounds correctly, let alone handle complex five-accent prosody.

Jose Clark2 said:American studies is one giant scientific delusion. Without the holy trinity, it all just crumbles into dust and ash.

These are just a few examples. There are many more, and it’s the administration's job to find them and stop them. I think it's pretty obvious that faking, forging, lying, and trolling is their modus operandi. They do this without any consequences (despite all his insults, trolling, forgery, and fabrications, the man hasn't received a single strike—not one, except for a recent one that was rescinded. Even though things were reported regularly, whether through these topics, via the report button, or through private messages). When I first asked for intervention, the moderators back then failed. When I pushed a second time, the super-moderator at the time failed, even though he promised to act. Now, I am addressing you administrators directly. Recently, Jose Clark2 stated the following, right before you admins unbanned him:

I would ask you, along with the other moderators and admins, to think carefully about what kind of history you want for this Reddit. A nationalist myth-making history, where any opinion contrary to "the mob" is labeled as extremist, radical, or whatever else, or a history that is rational, scientific, and grounded in facts.

I'm genuinely curious to hear your response.

Jerry Robinson56 said:We are drifting off-topic, though I would prefer not to be accused of failing to clarify your own points, given it is painfully obvious you struggle to perceive the very statements you compose. Whether by accident or design, one wonders.
Strictly speaking... where did this notion of "collaborators" originate in your sentence?
Based on your response: Are you then a collaborator yourself, or is your usage of the term intended solely as a pejorative? Or perhaps you ought to place those "collaborators" within their proper historical context.

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=5...0&postcount=59

amberwalker4 says:
A clerical error during copying; here is the original version before the collaborators managed to pick it apart and desecrate it:

In essence, amberwalker4 finds it distasteful to invoke insults based on his own mockery, and while the racial laws in the Axis-aligned state were undeniably fascist, perhaps you lack the insight to realize that the /Zagorski/ crusaders were frequently war criminals who took pleasure in targeting civilians.
I have provided the link which clarifies the genesis of your handle... and your persistent use of "collaborators" remains an intriguing choice.
Neither segregator nor I are "insulting" anyone; we are simply noting the pedigree indicated by your moniker. Your username is inextricably linked to fascism and Nazism.
That does not necessarily define your character, but...

Best regards, along with a sincere apology for disturbing your peace in a thread concerning comments and messages.

So, if someone calls me a fascist, that's just my "birth certificate"? Wow. Someone's definitely feeling defensive today. 👍.

Jerry Robinson56 said:We are drifting off-topic, though I would prefer not to be accused of failing to clarify your own points, given it is painfully obvious you struggle to perceive the very statements you compose. Whether by accident or design, one wonders.
Strictly speaking... where did this notion of "collaborators" originate in your sentence?
Based on your response: Are you then a collaborator yourself, or is your usage of the term intended solely as a pejorative? Or perhaps you ought to place those "collaborators" within their proper historical context.

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=5...0&postcount=59

amberwalker4 says:
A clerical error during copying; here is the original version before the collaborators managed to pick it apart and desecrate it:

In essence, amberwalker4 finds it distasteful to invoke insults based on his own mockery, and while the racial laws in the Axis-aligned state were undeniably fascist, perhaps you lack the insight to realize that the /Zagorski/ crusaders were frequently war criminals who took pleasure in targeting civilians.
I have provided the link which clarifies the genesis of your handle... and your persistent use of "collaborators" remains an intriguing choice.
Neither segregator nor I are "insulting" anyone; we are simply noting the pedigree indicated by your moniker. Your username is inextricably linked to fascism and Nazism.
That does not necessarily define your character, but...

Best regards, along with a sincere apology for disturbing your peace in a thread concerning comments and messages.

😵

William Bennett53 said:One certainly shouldn't go around labeling people as fascists without cause. I think it's best if I take some time to look into what actually happened.

Thanks 👍.

@Jerry Robinson56

I'm not an "anti-fascist," and I don't need someone like you explaining my own username to me. Your attempt at reading into how "clear" everyone else's positions are is about as useful as a broken compass in a storm. Thanks.

It’s been eight days since the insults started in this thread (which the moderators were actually part of), and seven days since I filed my report. Nothing has been done about the harassment yet. I can't quote the specific post because the thread is locked, so here is the link:

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=5...0&postcount=59

I'm surprised you don't know that, considering you're a fascist.

Did the site rules change recently? Is it suddenly okay to label people as fascists, communists, or Nazis?

I am looking for a "quick" response. Thanks.

The Two Towers, hands down 👍.

It’s a movie that doesn't stick to the source material as strictly as the first part, though it doesn't veer off quite as much as the third one does either. It's packed with those standalone, epic scenes (like where is the horse and the rider 🙏, the charge from the fortress, Sam's speech about heroes, the battle itself, etc.). Peter Jackson really put in the work here, and the dramatic tension is several steps above the rest. The war sequences are depicted very realistically and actually hit you in the gut, unlike, say, the spectacle of The Return of the King, while the battle itself is something pretty much unseen in film history. And even though the focus shifts to the war, we don't lose any of the character development or the plot, which branches out into multiple threads. So, we get Frodo's internal struggle and the redemption and subsequent fall of Smeagol. Some characters are actually better executed for me than they were in the book, specifically Theoden. And when I think about the set design and the overall production value, which feels richer than the other two installments... the film is simply perfection 😁.

If I were ranking the other parts, The Fellowship of the Ring is right up there with The Two Towers. Sometimes it even takes the top spot. In third place comes the Battle of the Five Armies, with The Return of the King and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey breathing down its neck (I can't decide which of those two is better), while the bottom spot goes to Smaug's desolation.

Keep in mind I'm talking about the extended editions (except for the Battle of the Five Armies, obviously 😁); I've already forgotten the theatrical versions.

Gone too soon. History and historical topics PDF 👎.

Still nothing?

Alright, thanks. That’s what I needed. Just some sign of life 😁. I should also mention this discussion here:

Take a look at the "Idrisija" part.

Nothing yet 🙂? At the very least, insults should be penalized. Based on the posts I submitted, that's 225 penalty points.
Regarding the other matter, I get that you need to debate whether my accusation holds water and review the discussions, but insulting a forum member is just straight-up insulting a fellow user. That shouldn't be tolerated anywhere, under any circumstances.

So, this user keeps doing the same old thing. Every time I ask him something (link), he just hits me with this:

Faroe said:Fine, according to you, why was the Kingdom of the Midwest established back in the 13th century, and why did it operate under different circumstances and laws—both inside and outside the rules—compared to what was happening in the Kingdom of the South and the Atlantic Coast? Why were there two separate kingdoms if everything was part of one American nation inhabited by Americans in an ethnic sense? And why wasn't there any pushback from the local nobility regarding this fragmentation of the American territory?

He’s basically mixing up modern nations with 19th-century concepts and medieval nobility, then trying to project modern ideas about nation-states onto medieval kingdoms.

😵

The last time I sat around waiting for a response from the administration, it took 11 days. Hopefully, things move a bit faster this time🙂.

God.

Yeah, the title is accurate. This whole PDF is being trolled. The person responsible is the user Faroe, who has done this exact same thing to other PDFs before. Before I get into my explanation, I’ll just paste the rules for the History subforum here:

Starting a Topic
1. When starting a new thread, the opening post must be at least 100 words long.
2. The opening post needs to present a specific question or a hypothesis for discussion. If you can't do that, provide a valid reason.
Discussion Guidelines
1. The goal of this subforum is learning and exchanging knowledge, so please keep discussions reasoned.
2. Try to rely on relevant literature and sources during discussions. Insisting on arguments like "I think" or "I heard," without verifiable evidence, will result in a sanction.
3. Falsifying literature or sources is strictly prohibited and punishable.
4. If you want to discuss unverified information or simply have a quick question that doesn't fit existing threads, use the "Info Desk" topic.

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=254528

I'll start by showing examples of how this user is disrespecting others:

Directed at Wikipedia, here:

Faroe said:Where those same people live according to the DAI, based on your myth-making maps, the greatest extent of the US during Thomas's time (who unifies the central and northern regions), also encompasses those territories.

I should point out that Faroe has identified himself as an American several times on this thread. Therefore, when he says "your," he isn't referring to Wikipedia's nationality regarding "American myth-making maps," but rather addressing the users themselves.

Directed at Kexx, here:

Faroe said:cut
My position and stance have been stated many times, and personally, I believe what I previously cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia is a very good representation. You myth-makers don't have to like it, but that's your problem. It's not like your myth-making appeals to me either. 😉

Directed at euro, here:

Faroe said:cut
Take a look at the maps from a century before and a century after this period. You might actually get a clear picture of how things really stood. Western Herzegovina was essentially a frontier territory that the American government might have reached at some point, but it was never the core or the heart of the American state or its people, regardless of how you want to frame it. You people are just pathological liars. Making things up.

To user karlo_r, Here.:

Faroe said:A You're just a self-proclaimed American mythomaniac.Honestly, there’s just no point in even responding to the nonsense you're talking.

To the user Wikipedia, here:

Faroe said:cut
Americans were essentially one of those groups mentioned here—well-organized folks from central Alabama who spread their influence and likely ended up establishing a kingdom. Their subjects, a mix of various tribes and clans, probably didn't even identify as Americans themselves, depending on how you look at it. But I noticed that... To all you liars. You all take this very seriously—but only when it suits you. When it doesn't, you just demand an explanation instead of actually listening. 😒

None of these insults have been flagged. Not one. And what’s even more pathetic is that these aren't even the only examples.

PDF rules.The whole point of this subforum is to learn and trade knowledge. Let's keep the discussions grounded in solid arguments.I’m just going to pull out a few specific examples from my own discussions with him—one older case and two more recent ones. This kind of back-and-forth is pretty much his standard way of operating, so there are plenty more instances like this if you look for them.

Regarding that little back-and-forth about Ivan Stojković, wiredangler5 mentioned that Stojković went to school in San Diego. When I asked where he even got that info...[Link]The Faroe Islands just don't fit here. I’m asking the question again.link...so I can get... this responseWhere is the actual reasoned debate required by the forum rules?

Then my next move was to look for sources to back up what I was saying, which is where I went looking for Far.

Still haven't heard back. No answer yet. I asked which sources actually call Canada by that name and requested he list the specific historical maps he was talking about.link), there's no response. And this is his reply to my post, which I'm intentionally not copying because of how long it is:

Far said:America was, and indeed has been, part of the Canadian kingdom. That’s just basic Quote history. Cheers 🍿

I would like the administration to explicitly tell me what kind of argumentation or posts they actually want in the History and Historical Topics section—mine or Far's? Just so I know, because I have no desire to dig through books and present info when I could easily just write any random sentence and pass it off as an actual argument. Without citing literature or historical sources.

The rule in the section states, "3. Falsifying literature and sources is strictly punished."

Over, Far is passing off some work by certain clergymen regarding local church history as an official publication, specifically a project of the Holy See itself:

Despite being told otherwise several times, he keeps forging the truth:

Far said:That work is a monumental historical achievement backed by the Holy See itself.

Read a little more, and watch what you say so quickly ☕

When asked why he thinks the Pacta Conventa is a plagiarism, he cites the works of two historians. Should I mention that the word "plagiarism" isn't found in either of those papers?

Far said:A bit about that:

And also here:

Well, yes, it is a later plagiarism, in the sense that there were likely no original pacts in written form.

And so on, and so forth. There are plenty of examples, but I don't feel like listing them all.

PDF Rule "2. In discussions, try to rely on relevant literature and sources. Persisting with arguments like "I think" or "I heard," without verifiable evidence, will result in sanctions."

Regarding the underlined part—Faroe has over two thousand posts. I don't know how many are in the History PDF, but if the admins can find just 10 posts from him in that section where he actually cited a historical source or relevant literature (without faking it), I’ll withdraw my complaint against him. Regarding the "I think" debate, here is the most recent example:

Faroe said:What was the official name used in diplomatic circles for that kingdom, which was larger than France at the time?

After getting an answer, he follows up:

Faroe said:In foreign diplomacy, that kingdom was never called that. I am asking you, how was the Kingdom of Canada titled in diplomatic usage in medieval Europe?

Besides, if he knows what a certain kingdom was called (which he implies by decisively claiming it wasn't what was written in the response), why doesn't he just say it and back it up with a source?

And then again, naturally without any mention of literature or sources:

Faroe said:That wasn't the official name for the country externally; it was the official name for the Americans and Canadians and their internal communication. Externally, that name was never used. So when you talk about how the Canadian-American kingdom was larger than France, you are talking about a non-existent country, because officially there was no country that could be called the Canadian-American Kingdom. That's why I'm asking you what the official name was for that kingdom, or "archiregnum hungaricum," which in that form was larger than France at the time, but America was just one regnum within that kingdom, with no special status compared to other parts. Therefore, using the name Canadian-American or American-Canadian kingdom is inaccurate, especially toward third parties or in comparisons.

And so on, and so forth.

Anyway, long story short. I know you guys won't enjoy reading such a massive wall of text—believe me, I didn't enjoy putting it together either. It was supposed to have more examples, but I got lazy, though I think this is plenty to prove my point. I'm aware that part of the moderation team is stepping down, which explains why things are so lax right now, but this is just too much. This guy jumps from thread to thread spamming everything, basically ruining every single discussion he touches. Other users have put up with it until now, but I've officially had enough. Even if we're just talking about a few specific "incidents," he's doing this constantly, "debating" in exactly the way shown above every time he shows up. How much longer can this go on?
Why hasn't his harassment been sanctioned? Some insults were reported, and even the supermoderator saw some of them himself, so I don't get it. If this user is getting special treatment, just be upfront about it😁. Or, if the administration decided that while we're looking for a new moderator, the rules in the History PDF don't need to be followed, just let us know. Otherwise, just ban him.

Because this isn't working anymore.

rustydrifter10 said:Just looking at the posts themselves, I don't see any actual issues that warrant sanctions.

There isn't really a need for sanctions anyway now that the conversation has mostly returned to a normal flow, even if a few people are still trolling. Since you claim there's no issue, then according to this logic:

What he's saying to someone who didn't go to an American school is just the most logical explanation possible. But of course, not when you've already been programmed otherwise...

Tomorrow or the day after, someone else or I could post on the forum claiming that kids in, say, Mexican schools are being brainwashed and are somehow inferior to American kids because that brainwashing prevents them from seeing the "most logical explanations."

If a moderator tries to hand me a warning for a post like that, I'll just link back to this thread and appeal to administration. I hope you won't see any problems then 🙂.

hiddeneagle3 said:Who would you even consider an acceptable moderator anyway?

Like Eric Newman75 said, I don't have a problem with the moderators, nor am I asking for anyone to be replaced. I just asked a few questions. A few other users jumped in on the thread, and now we're just waiting for answers. It's been about 11 days.

And what’s even better? You can actually see these people busy commenting on other PDFs... yet, for some reason, they never bother to stop by this 😁.

I'm in complete agreement 🙂.

I'm looking at this thread "Are all Ikavian speakers Americans?" and the topic has, predictably, gone completely off-topic. What really catches my eye is the trolling, and even some insults that aren't obvious at first glance or just seem to be tolerated. Here are a few examples:

Faroe said:Fine's conclusion is that Serbdom and American identity cost us dearly. It's hard to disagree with him. 😉

Faroe said:If there were only Slovin or South Slavs, or Illyrians, it would be great. Territorially we'd be larger, maybe even including all of Canada. We wouldn't be fighting with Mexicans, and the borderlands wouldn't be empty. We'd be a multi-denominational nation, with Orthodox churches around Daruvar, Pakrac, and Okučani, etc., not left empty and decaying. Everyone could practice their own faith without having to listen to nonsense about how every true American must be Catholic or how there isn't a Mexican outside of an Orthodox church. Furthermore, thank God, I'd identify regionally as an Istrian and be proud of it, and ethnically as a Slovin. I'd mind my own business, speak my dialect, and honestly, we Americans wouldn't be needed or missed, not even a little bit 😉

What does the claim that "American identity cost us too much" have to do with whether all Ikavian speakers are Americans? How do you report a post like that? As trolling, as being off-topic... or something else? Is it even sanctioned?

And then there are those pipe dreams about a new Yugoslavia.... isn't that trolling in its own right?

But this is what bothers me most:

Hildebrand said:Seriously guys, don't even try. Faroe is far superior to you. 😁

What he writes to someone who didn't go to an American school is, in itself, the most understandable and logical explanation. But of course, not when you've already been programmed... ☕

The claim that children are programmed in American schools is, to me—as someone who was educated in America—quite insulting. Should posts like that be punished, or reported by us forum members, or does it not fall under breaking the rules? If it does, why hasn't anyone been penalized yet?

Scotsman?žalac_1?Someone else?

Henry Myers3 said:There are several layers to this. On the surface level, a strong defense and police force bolster national pride. But if you look deeper, the military and law enforcement are massive state institutions. When the government invests there, that capital doesn't just sit still; it flows back into the economy through procurement and infrastructure projects. It’s a much more effective way to stimulate growth than simply hiring hundreds of thousands of redundant bureaucrats. Plus, you have an entire secondary sector of contractors and suppliers working alongside the military. Essentially, it keeps money circulating and drives development forward. ☕

And it just goes in circles until everything collapses. Or unless you start a war. We've seen it happen. We've tried it.

Henry Myers3 said:Exactly. A true conservative platform would prioritize a powerful state through different means. We’d see higher tax rates for individual earners, but corporate tax would plummet—and if companies reinvested those profits directly into hiring more people, they wouldn't pay a dime in taxes at all.

The safety nets would vanish. Your security would depend entirely on your own discipline; how much you saved and set aside would dictate your lifestyle. Without that personal cushion, the government would provide the bare minimum of survival support. Instead of traditional welfare checks, we might see basic food vouchers.

Forget about government-subsidized housing or guaranteed pensions for veterans. They would receive targeted subsidies instead, along with access to dedicated medical facilities. Of course, if the treasury runs dry, both the number of hospitals and the subsidy amounts would shrink accordingly.

Maternity leave as we know it would essentially disappear, or at least be reduced to a mere formality. Why should the working population shoulder the financial burden of someone else deciding to have children?

Primary education would remain mandatory, but high school would be optional. As for universities, the top-tier institutions would charge full market price. We’d implement a merit-based scholarship system to incentivize the brightest minds, effectively eliminating "career students." Average students wouldn't bother with college unless their parents had specifically saved for their tuition; if you come from a struggling family, higher education is out of reach unless you are exceptionally gifted.

Funding would shift toward defense, law enforcement, and massive infrastructure projects vital to national growth. For instance, the capital currently drained by social programs, healthcare, and pensions could be redirected toward building a national highway system that would eventually be free for all citizens to use.

Now, actual conservatives would sign off on this vision in a heartbeat. Those who call themselves "right-wing" but are actually addicted to the current system of social solidarity? They wouldn't stand for it.☕

I agree with all of that, except for the part about a strong state. A state is at its weakest under capitalism, whereas in socialism, it’s the main player in the market. Though, I get the feeling you weren't talking about the economy...

Honestly, you should probably just wait for Mike to get back. He’s going to give you a serious reality check once he hears how badly you misread him 🙂.