Posts by amberwalker4

Canada.

Susan Peterson7 said:A strategic axis connecting America-Canada-Canada-Austria—or more broadly, the Alps-Danube-Adriatic corridor—should really be the cornerstone of our foreign policy for both geopolitical and economic reasons. Of course, that's assuming we weren't currently being led by regionalists who prioritize local squabbles over grand strategy.

We need to cut Canada out of every possible alliance. We have seen exactly what kind of "friends" and allies they really are. Trying to force them into the same group would just be masochism—one step worse than being stuck with Mexico.

Hey there, Matanić. You actually already have a thread for this on the first page of this PDF, so this whole self-promotion thing feels a little desperate, doesn't it 😉?

Hollywood: "They're going to remake Tony Montana's Scarface 🙂!"

Fans: "Say hello to my little friend!"

1. Colonel Kranzer 2. Deacon Frost 3. leader
2. Deacon Frost
3. Horned leader of power
4. Magu 5. Dracula
5. Magu 5. Dracula
6. 6. Zula tribe

Susan Peterson7 said:I’m starting this thread because a buddy of mine mentioned the other day that The Cabinet supposedly passed some new regulation where any house without finished siding or stucco will be slapped with monthly fines until the exterior is updated. I haven't tuned into the news in about a week, and I can't find a single mention of this on any of the major news sites, so I wanted to see if anyone actually knows if there's any truth to this rumor.

If it turns out to be true, then honestly, it’s about time. 🙂

Are you offering to pay for everyone's new siding?

I'd also love some confirmation on whether this law is real.

copperdriver10 said:As far as I can tell, "Tot" is just how they refer to a Slovak. Or does it apply to Canadians in general?

Toth is a Slav.

Alex Scott5 said:amberwalker4, you have a point.
But you have to admit you get a bit (pre)emotional in these kinds of debates too. The demon has been warned; since I saw this just five days after it was posted, I decided to skip the warning card. If it happens again, give a warning via DM or file a complaint, then go straight for the ban.

I view forum posting as a virtual debate. So, I know how to be emotional. It might be annoying, but I don't see it that way and I can't help it 😁. If I'm irritating anyone or if I'm not in the spirit of the discussion, just warn me. I'm open to criticism.

wiredangler5 said:First off, my apologies to everyone who messaged me privately and didn't get a reply. Work took me away from Washington, D.C. for a few days, so I wasn't on the forum (I'm still old school, using an old phone that doesn't play nice with all these new gadgets that let you get online anywhere, anytime 😁).

These two posts pretty much sum up what should be concluded from this whole report. amberwalker4 is actually right—labeling people isn't allowed and it isn't okay. Some people aren't bothered by it, as they mentioned in the thread, but others definitely are.
If we allow it for some because it doesn't bother them, while protecting others, we'll end up with double standards, which eventually leads to chaos in our rules.
This kind of thing should be avoided in discussions, and if it happens, it should result in a warning card.

In these quotes, you mention there's a difference when it comes to labeling a viewpoint. Here, that only applies in certain cases; in others, it's debatable. Because the Middle East is the Middle East—never simple, always complicated.
Because around here, it isn't even the same thing to say "your view is pro-American/pro-Russian" or "your view is ultra-liberal/you're just a nostalgic relic of the old regime (where a guy remembers the good old days of getting his Scout membership and suddenly he's a commie sympathizer)."
In the latter case, the person will often find themselves insulted.

So, it would be best to avoid any kind of labeling as much as possible, just so that labeling a viewpoint doesn't become a mask for labeling the person.

amberwalker4, the posts have been flagged, and we can close this discussion. wasp, feel free to issue a card up to 10 days after a post is made; until then, posts are subject to a reaction or a warning.

Well, I don't have one of those phones either, so I get it 😁.Joking aside, I understand that someone might be unable to get onto the forum for a few days (for instance, I haven't been on the forum since the last post in this thread), but in those times, I ask for understanding because otherwise, it looks like I'm ignoring people. Thanks for the response and the help, both to you and to wasp.🙂

Hey there.

Hey, it's been four days now. I figured I probably deserve at least some kind of response from the admin team 🤷?

What, nothing 🙂?

I’m with you on this one, Karay.

Hey there!

I’m stuck on something here. Yesterday, a user named demon called me a Nazi sympathizer. I reported the post and reached out to the super-moderator just to be safe. Later, a moderator hopped online and shut down the thread entirely without issuing any penalty to that guy. I figured, fine—maybe this isn't one of those heated threads where everyone is constantly attacking each other and mods just want to avoid unnecessary drama. But then this morning happened. That same user called me a Nazi sympathizer again. And once more, absolutely nothing was done.

Evo spornih postova:

The concept of a demon is complex. It isn't just about horror movies or old legends. People see them as manifestations of darkness or chaos. I think it's more about the internal struggle we all face. We deal with our own shadows every day. It’s a heavy topic, but one worth considering. says:
Hold on. So you've turned into an extreme Nazi sympathizer? Because they stripped your grandfather when he was only thirteen. Look, I have three great-uncles who were part of the Nazi Germany regime—well, they went undercover toward the end of 1944. One vanished while serving in the German army, and another relative was convicted of terrorism back in the seventies. I'm nothing like them. 😉

And this one from today:

The demon is here. It’s happening. The user said:I was watching this documentary last night about the final days of Nazi Germany—stumbled onto it right around 9:30 PM. There’s this one part where an Englishman says they were told that "half a million, or maybe 200,000 Americans and Germans" were headed their way. He said those exact words. When Basta tries to intimidate Crljen and Herenčić, one of them—I think it was Herenčić—tries to play on the Englishman's conscience to get them accepted rather than sent back. He tells him they would have "the blood of 150,000 Americans on their hands." If he was just trying to pull the Englishman's heartstrings, he was definitely inflating the numbers.

I already gave you my take on the 13th SS division. The issue is pretty straightforward: their commander receives the Knight's Cross in May 1945. If the division supposedly doesn't exist anymore, how does he manage to pull that off? It means the division is still around, just at half-strength from the Germans, like I said before. That's really it. But honestly, if you want to actually understand this stuff, you should probably do some reading.

Look, we’ve come to the conclusion that you turned into a Nazi sympathizer just because of your grandfather's old socks.So what happens if you try to argue that Herenčić and Crljen have absolutely no idea how many people actually stand behind them?

And now we’re dealing with the fallout from the Nazi Germany era. They always seem to overlook the Germans from the GA E units. It’s like they don't even exist to them—not when they're retreating, not when they're surrendering, and certainly not among those being targeted by the partisans.

Is it reasonable to expect this user to actually get two warnings for being so blatantly abusive? Or is he just going to walk away scot-free again? 🤷?

I get where you're coming from, but I noticed one user who was being pretty aggressive and insulting didn't even go into "silent mode" after his controversial posts were scrubbed. That shouldn't be allowed, IMHO. Maybe he ended up getting some warnings later on, but at that moment, he didn't 🤷.

Charles Fox10 said:It’s not accurate to say only one person was being insulting, and it’s also not true that everyone who insulted people hasn't been banned. But you can't see all that. As for keeping the topics from getting out of hand, the mods are just taking a break until tomorrow, for example. A few people lost their minds, but that isn't your concern.

From what I could tell, the only forum user actually being abusive was "piggy." Everyone else was aiming their insults at PBS, not at other users.

Not my concern? If I see people getting away with things without being punished, what am I supposed to think? What’s the point of this PDF then?

Charles Fox10 said:You know perfectly well that isn't true. The thread was just temporarily locked because users went overboard with the insults. The moderators figured it would be better to pause things until tempers cooled down rather than handing out warnings or bans.
Warnings and bans aren't the only tools moderators have, and you know that better than anyone as a long-time user.
The discussion about Vučić has its own dedicated thread where people are debating pretty intensely, so that excuse doesn't hold water either.

To be honest, if we're being real, only one user (let's call him Piggy) actually started hurling insults. In just three posts, he called his interlocutors "right-wing pieces of shit and retards," and those were his only posts. He showed up specifically to insult people, and he did exactly that. In response, a moderator (let's call him DJ) deleted his posts—without actually punishing him, obviously—and told everyone to calm down or face warnings.

Let's face it—if me or jadeseal4 had jumped into this thread and spent three or four posts calling people "shit" or "retards," that moderator, let's call him DJ, would have banned us instantly. No mercy. Instead, one guy gets off scot-free, and the whole thread gets shut down under the pretense that everyone was insulting each other. In reality, one person was being abusive while everyone else was just laughing along.

Just my 2 cents.

jadetrucker43 said:Is that better now?

Yeah, thanks 👍.

Hey there!

I'm having some trouble with my signature... I want to add one more sentence to it, but it won't let me:

Your signature contains too many lines and must be shortened. You may only have up to 1 line(s). Long text may have been implicitly wrapped, causing it to be counted as multiple lines.

I'm trying to split my signature into two parts, putting one sentence on top and the other on a new line below... but the system is blocking me. It seems pretty weird to me because I've seen all kinds of signatures on here, some with entire paragraphs and tons of hyperlinks inside them. What gives?

Sam Green73 said:Stop trying to dictate who gets to reply to posts on the Politics subforum.
Next time, you'll get a formal warning.

Consider this your final warning.

You’ve got it stuck in your head that I'm some kind of moderator giving orders or deleting things just because I feel like it. It wasn't like that. It was just some harmless advice. But what would you know about that?

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, this isn't the place to be proving points like this. There should probably be a specific thread for that over in the Politics section.

So, what you're saying is I have to go back to that thread and prove the guy is being unfair and abusing his mod powers, all while racking up warnings just for talking about how he manages things? Thanks a lot. You’ve said it all.

Sam Green73 said:Now we just need to figure out what qualifies as an opinion versus what is a fact.

Your opinion is still being debated, so there’s no need to double up on messages with the exact same content or viewpoint.

This is getting rude. Replying to someone isn't "duplicating an opinion." This is a forum; people quote each other here.

And that bit about needing to distinguish opinion from fact? Pure gold. I guess you're right. The US Army was just an independent partisan movement, and Gojko Šušak was their political commissar (sarcasm intended).

I might as well go out and try to baptize a rabbit. We have an unbiased moderator who deletes half the posts, talks nonsense, and then—as if to top it all off—actually restores a post that a user deleted themselves (I wonder if that's even allowed?)....all while using the excuse that we still have to decide what's an opinion and what's a fact. It’s funny how his own posts aren't considered duplicates, but everyone else's are 😍.

Honestly, I don't care anymore. I see there's no point in hanging around this specific thread. I reported the posts, let the administration know, pointed out the issue, and now I just don't give a damn (pardon my French). All I can do now is guess what the admin will decide... which should be pretty hard to predict, right?

Sam Green73 said:Discussions about moderation belong in the County Prefect section, while any debates regarding Politics should stay on the Politics subforum.
It seems like you've gotten everything mixed up.

And what exactly counts as "commenting on moderation"? Is it pointing out how you basically proved your own claim—that everyone is entitled to their opinion—was pretty much false (though you'll let me have my opinion on that)? Or is it just me saying I won't weigh in on this topic again until the admins weigh in?

🤷