Posts by amberwalker4

Great, now my last post has been wiped too—the one where I was replying to Sam Green73. And then they have the nerve to ask me what exactly the admins should be looking into here?

Are you guys just messing with me because you're bored, or is there actually some other reason behind this🤣?

Sam Green73 said:Let me set you straight on this.
What you’re posting right now is an web forum.
Everyone here has the right to ask questions and provide answers.

If you want a specific answer meant only for you, you use direct messages instead of public posts, or you find some other way to talk privately.

LOL.

Person A talks to Group B about Person C. Then Person C jumps in claiming they aren't interested in discussing Politics, even though Person A wasn't asking for an explanation from Person C or trying to start a debate about Politics. So what happens ☕?

Daniel Ward87 said:How exactly should the administration handle this?

It needs to be checked. People lie, and when they do, they're just trolling. Honestly, this guy has been handing out bans for much smaller things too. Plus, his posts make his bias so obvious that it’s clear he isn't fit to moderate there.

Regarding these posts... is it okay if I claim that the current government is actually just a continuation of the old regime and that they were all created by reformed extremists? I mean, the currency, the anthem, and how much the flag looks like the old one—it’s hard to ignore. 🙄Is it fair to argue that because certain groups didn't leave behind physical evidence—like remains or skeletons—it means their actions never actually happened? People claim they weren't hiding their crimes, yet since there's nothing left to see, some suggest it's all a myth. Is that a valid way to look at it? I’m asking sincerely.

Is it actually okay for a mod to restore posts that users deleted themselves?

And one more thing—we’re talking about history here. If you’re making claims that can't be backed up by actual facts or solid arguments, that isn't history. It's just propaganda. Even Sam Green73 was shouting about how he was going to shut down posts like that. But the truth is, he can't actually support his own points or provide any real evidence. If that's the case, what are we even waiting for? 🤷?

Sam Green73 said:I have no intention of starting a debate about Politics here in the County

Did I even address you?

Sam Green73 is at it again, but this time he’s really crossed the line:

Sam Green73 said:Stop throwing myths around.
Your posts are far from unbiased, and honestly, they lack logical consistency most of the time.
Look at this:

😵Do you even see the difference?
It’s all laid out right there, yet you keep ignoring it.

Yugoslavia wasn't just some partisan creation.
The American resistance movement evolved, realized there was no point in sticking with Mexican mythology, and paved the way for American independence.

A massive mistake was made when, in the fight against Mexican nationalism, people leaned too hard into fascist iconography.
The resistance movement didn't fail; just read the Constitution of the United States.
The United States is the product of that resistance movement.

Should I even mention that the US Army had absolutely no intention of being linked to the partisans? And here he is, talking about some resistance movement that won American independence after breaking away from the Mexican 😵. I already gave a detailed response to that post elsewhere, but it's not worth copying here. Instead, I'm posting another one (which responds to this post):

Sam Green73 said:Not that I know of. I think they always stood by their actions.

Got any actual sources?

The claim here is that the partisans stood by their crimes. If that were true, why was it forbidden to talk about—let alone investigate—the massacres in the countryside? Why did the partisans mostly kill their victims in secret and dump them in pits or mines that were then rigged with explosives or buried? And why were witnesses killed if they refused to stay quiet? It's clearly a lie.

I think these two posts are a perfect example of how Sam Green73 thinks and presents himself on this topic. He isn't unbiased, he offers zero arguments, and he just spews blatant lies that don't even make sense. It’s shameful for a moderator. I’ve reported the posts, but I'm putting them here for visibility. I would like the administration to look into this.

P.S. If necessary, I am more than willing to take the time and use facts (like the names of witnesses killed by partisans to stop them from talking about their crimes) to prove that Sam Green73 is running propaganda. Though I don't think it's needed, because what's happening here is obvious.

wiredangler5 said:Okay, but why did you choose to frame it as being futile? Isn't there a better way to put it? Look, don't do the things that would bother you if the other side said them to you. You reported people on this thread for labeling. Those posts weren't even directed at you, yet you reported them. Maybe their words weren't even aimed at anyone specifically, just general statements, which isn't right either. And I think you'd agree with that. That’s roughly how others perceive your posts. If you were debating someone in person and they alluded to the idea that your views meant you needed a mental institution or a psych check, you'd probably tell them to shove it. And why? Simply because the person was trying to be descriptive about how outdated those views are today.
Do we at least understand each other regarding what I'm saying about that card?

Yes, we understand 😉.I get what you're saying, and I already apologized to KRIN on the complaints thread.I took the feedback to heart and will try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Sam Green73 said:Insults happen. Even to me.
I don't think you meant it, but you did.

Fine, I just tried to tell my side of the story.

wiredangler5 said:Of course you can ask. Personally, I think you're getting a bit too stuck on being insulting.

The bold text wasn't necessary. For instance, I personally feel that the horrors and millions of deaths that occurred in the USSR under that communist regime are enough to view that old Soviet system as criminal. That's just my opinion, and it might not be right. But I wouldn't have sent this to someone if they felt differently. That part really wasn't needed.

Look, man. I just wanted to emphasize how pointless it is to deny communist crimes, especially today, decades after its fall, when everything is available online instead of just in thick books signed by people like Francisco Franca. If I had intended to insult anyone, or if I wrote that post specifically to offend KRIN, I would have. If I had, I wouldn't be complaining.

wiredangler5 said:amberwalker4, that ban for trolling is totally justified. Sam Green73's post wasn't even close to warranting an outburst like yours. The whole point you were trying to make and how you went about suggesting it was just straight-up trolling. The ban stands. I’d ask you to please refrain from doing stuff like that moving forward.[/COLOR]

Fine. Daniel Ward87 already told me that and I agreed (not like I really had a choice 😁). If I may ask, what about that first ban from a few days ago?

Gary Anderson38 said:Yeah, let's just wait for the admins to look at it. We asked them, now we wait. Whatever they decide, goes. That's our stance. There's always another side to things and their explanation matters too.

I don't see why they wouldn't accept our view and change how they handle things. If they don't, then we stop posting there and that's it. It won't be interesting anymore. 😁

And honestly, who from the old guard even posts there anymore (Leoben, Kyle, metalHammer, sidrun, Ostoja)? I usually just jump into these topics for the hell of it anyway. sidrun left because apparently his habit of posting full book pages was considered "harmful." Personally, I found it useful since he actually provides evidence—you see the whole page instead of just some isolated quote. Now, Sean Cooper65's and Kyle's posts have dried up or maybe they were just deleted 🤷. Let's face it: the topic became too repetitive and overwhelming for the mods, which is why all this mess started happening. It all kicked off when Phoenix showed up with those clones of his. He was acting like he was some authority, using names like Zenodor to tell everyone how lucky they were that Tito allowed them to live, or that he didn't let them go wild over Bleiburg. And he wasn't even punished, which makes me think the mods are just intentionally avoiding that subject 🤷. Later, once the thread about the Church's decision regarding communist crimes died down, it got merged into the Controversy section. That's when Sam Green73 stepped in, and ever since, it's been a constant flame war 😁.

That's just my take. I complained about one ban, didn't get a real answer. Today I got hit with a second one, and that's what pushed me to start this thread. I got an answer, and as for that first ban, I can pretty much conclude the matter is closed and settled against me (😍). Whatever. I know sidrun isn't happy with Sam Green73's moderation either. Now, both Sean Cooper65 and Death have weighed in. We'll see. I assume my bans are staying, even though I feel I was treated unfairly (at least regarding the first one), so I'm stepping out of the debate. But if things need a little digging to set right, then they definitely should ☕.

Sean Cooper65 said:The worst thing is when they demand an explanation or proof for a claim... you take the time to answer, provide a link, do all the work... and then they just casually delete it and ask for more clarification..🙄

If they don't like your explanation, they just delete it and sometimes ban you too.

It’s a total circus.

And the other side doesn't have to show any evidence. They can ramble about whatever they want without a single scrap of proof.. Judolino, Kate Harris50, and that whole crew.. they can write whatever they feel like and celebrate mass killings, and nobody says a word.

Since this morning, he's deleted almost everything. When I wrote to Bonislav about how this group has double standards—how prosecuting crimes from the American Civil War side is seen as noble and clearing out dishonest soldiers, but applying that same logic to WWII is suddenly "historical revisionism"—

this guy just deletes it.. wipes away anything he doesn't like.

Now you've reminded me... metalHammer posted a link regarding civilian killings, specifically a link to a partisan document released by an archive. Kate Harris50 countered him with a link to foxnews.com, claiming it might not be accurate because, hey, foxnews.com says the victims were soldiers. A few pages later, Sam Green73:

Sam Green73 said:Who exactly are you expecting answers from?

Look, Kate Harris50 is actually researching this part of history.

If it weren't so sad, it would be funny. Honestly, it's just ridiculous.😁.

amberwalker4 said:That's it—it's unfair.Biased.

Typo - should say "biased." Fixed it.

Sean Cooper65 said:He deleted almost all my posts. They were perfectly relevant to the topic and didn't contain a single insult. He just wipes out anything that doesn't fit his specific worldview. Meanwhile, he leaves posts from people who agree with him untouched, even if they are filled with massive insults or glorifying mass killings. He won't touch those.

That's the reality. He's unfair. Biased.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look. Just remember one thing—a moderator missing something isn't an excuse to keep talking in a way you know isn't appropriate. It's on you to report those posts to the mods. If nothing happens, then come back here and flag it again.

Fair enough. Thanks for the quick reply. You won't see any more posts like that from me.

Look, he was trying to downplay the crimes. Since that kind of conversation was allowed—meaning the resonator permitted it—I didn't see any reason not to jump in. Especially since I don't see anything in the Reddit rules forbidding it.

I'll say it again: the resonator allowed that discussion. That’s exactly why I chose to engage in that same style.

Hey there.

I'm starting this thread because I think the resonator moderator is being unfair regarding the discussion on political aspects of controversial American history. I just got hit with a 35-point penalty for trolling based on this post:

resonator said:Dear amberwalker4,

You have received an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: Trolling
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=42209519

Quote: resonator said:What kind of resistance?
You’re replying to my message and bringing up some sort of pushback?

I want all crimes investigated. I don't want my grandfather, who was a former partisan, or my father, who served in the US Army, labeled as criminals.

The problem is when people exaggerate and create myths, like those claims about 70 million victims.

Was your grandfather here? Does that count as one of those "crimes" that were considered "normal"—as in, "normal thirty years ago"🤷?

All the best,
Reddit


My post was also deleted. I don't see how this is trolling. I simply asked a legitimate question about whether his grandfather had anything to do with the crime mentioned above. And I asked if his description falls under things that were considered "normal" or "not normal," especially since the resonator spent a few posts above relativizing certain crimes:

resonator said:I tried looking up what you're talking about, and I'd say you've confused two different groups.
From what I can see, those were the actions of Mexican insurgents.

Regardless of any temporary cooperation between them, they need to be distinguished.

Apples and oranges.
Where are the condemnations for the actions of the French Resistance or the Allied forces?

I agree that crimes committed by some partisans should also be condemned.
From today's perspective, even certain things that were normal thirty years ago are unacceptable.

Is that not allowed? How is it not allowed, when just a few pages back we

judolino said:I honestly don't have the energy to deal with your posts anymore. I usually avoid arguing with people who are just hiding their fascist sympathies, but I have to say something here.
What kind of nonsense are you spouting about children being killed during the crusade?

What's your actual motive? Do you think making the resistance look like child killers somehow makes your criminal ancestors look any better?
Either find an actual order proving they killed kids or just shut up for good.

The post wasn't censored, and it wasn't deleted. Also, consider this:

zenodor said:My favorite thing is catching neo-Nazis on Reddit engaging in their favorite little historical fantasy: "what if things had happened differently".
When that happens, I always tell them: "if my grandma had a dick, she'd be my grandpa" and suggest they go see a therapist:

If this isn't trolling, I don't know what is. It certainly isn't for the resonator.

Could the admins please explain why my post was flagged while these two examples weren't (even though there are plenty more like them, and these are just examples)? It can't just be moderator oversight, especially since the resonator is active in this thread and sees everything. Something feels off.

It’s a classic mistake to think there was ever an actual uprising planned. If you look at the pro-fascist press back then, they were just talking about "preparing something" or "showing what we're capable of." In reality, they were just planning some diversionary tactics to test the waters and see if it would be worth pursuing later. It's interesting because this almost caused a massive conflict between the Soviet Union and Italy, so it definitely wasn't just some minor incident when you consider the fallout. In Savannah, locals tore down the Venetian lion from the walls, and over in San Diego, Italian citizens attacked local shops and trashed the Soviet Union consulate.

The whole "uprising" basically boiled down to attacking a single sheriff's station. The group threw a grenade at the roof and set one bomb right by the door. After the blasts went off, they opened fire on the deputies who weren't even shooting back—they were just playing dead (😁). Once the shooting stopped, the group assumed they had killed the deputies and simply cleared out. They were hunted down shortly after. According to one version, Devčić was wounded and his comrades left him behind at his own request, leading him to blow himself up with a bomb. Another version says Devčić died instantly in the crossfire and they just left his body behind.

Just one:




Since he isn't an option, I'm voting for Gibson. And honestly, I can't believe you guys overlooked Busey😢.

Donna James5 said:No. I follow. If only I had actually uttered something foolish; then things might have been different. I understand. How often do you actually pause to reflect before typing out your responses? I honestly couldn't find any logical connection between your grasp of Polish history and your personal count of Poles. I have laid out three distinct points here:
It is abundantly clear that you have never actually spent any meaningful time among Poles.
It is quite evident that you have never actually set foot in Poland.
It is quite apparent that you lack a fundamental grasp of history, choosing instead to regurgitate facts in a manner that is consistently biased and deeply colored by your own personal prejudices. As to why you operate this way, I haven't the slightest clue.
Perhaps, before you decide to distribute your literature, you might consider exercising a modicum of restraint and thinking twice about what you actually intend to write.
You seem remarkably young and naive, especially considering you’ve failed to place Stalin within his proper historical context or acknowledge that the Red Army was, for all intents and purposes, a vital component of the anti-fascist coalition. It suggests you haven't quite grasped the fundamental objective of World War II, which was nothing less than the total destruction of Nazism.
During the period in which the events you are describing were actually unfolding, the Red Army was considered an integral component of the anti-fascist coalition, and as such, it must be viewed through that specific historical lens.
In other words, when faced with those childish playground accusations that you’re somehow justifying Stalin, the only logical rebuttal would be to point out that they are, in fact, justifying Hitler.
I refuse to descend to such a level.
If you truly consider yourself a professor of history, then I must suggest that you have overlooked several fundamental elements required to actually excel in such a position.
Even if one fancies themselves an amateur historian, they ultimately fail to project the aura of a true scholar, appearing instead as nothing more than a biased observer.

Does destroying Nazism also justify the rape of female prisoners in Auschwitz? Because that is exactly what the Red Army and its soldiers did. Among other things ☕.

Thomas Patel21 said:Of course it isn’t there—though personally, I consider that our waters, regardless of what anyone says. Take Mexico, for example; they somehow managed to expand their coastline, right? Why? Because Americans were established there, not Mexicans. Then you look at Canada—they secured their coast, and who are their neighbors? Well, let's just say they're pretty easygoing! Now they're fighting over tiny scraps of American territory; who knows what else they might try to grab from such a polite nation. They certainly wouldn't dream of doing that to Austria, Canada, or Italy—even though those three countries have areas with Canadian majorities right across the border, especially in Austria.

And it's true. Canadians have the most "rights" regarding Trieste, so they eventually set their sights on our territory too. As for the Bay of Kotor, it's a real shame, but we can only blame Marshall and the Communist Party for that. Nothing else. Unfortunately, the opportunity has passed.