Posts by Matthew Castillo5

Jacob Sullivan10 said:Lawrence Bailey77, I love you, really, but I don't have any intention of giving a serious answer to everything you just wrote. Maybe it's just that I'm a curious, meddling old lady who happens to be interested in what my neighbor is up to : D . I figured that "THAT" 🤣 might have some fancy little name, something like "pyromania," maybe "water-mania" or something similar, so I could look it up and read a bit more about it. 😬 But I suppose, according to you, even that counts as an invasion of privacy. 😬 Plus, next time I can try to act all intellectual in front of the neighbors by using a sophisticated term for whatever is bothering someone 🤣 (though I'll make sure to mention it's a joke, since it seems you aren't picking up on my sense of humor quite the same way I am : ) .
Anyway, Lawrence Bailey77 showed up and basically "Lawrence Bailey77-ed" my whole thread and me along with it. 😬 Now I really ought to include a proper signature 😬 : Jacob Sullivan10, the diagnosis hunter. And of course, Lawrence Bailey77, I don't exactly keep my own diagnoses displayed at my front door, right? It should be pretty obvious that I keep a little black book where I jot down everyone else's 🤣

Seriously, all of you can go jump in a lake! 😁 Now you've gone and forced me to look up the term hydromania, and sure enough, it exists and apparently means "an excessive love for water." Honestly though, I can't tell if that's actually what your neighbor is dealing with, or if he's just trying to drive up everyone's shared utility bill.

bluecyclist64 said:Linda Young38, your only real issue is thinking you’re the only one who’s right and everyone else is just dead wrong.

That’s exactly where most people trip up. Look, I’m not sitting here claiming I’ve got the only right answer while everyone else is just dead wrong. I'm not that guy.

bluecyclist64 said:Remember all those blatant lies you posted on the forum—that nonsense about massacres of women and children back in '45—before you suddenly decide to come crawling around looking for "truth" and justice.

I haven’t published a single lie. I have never once written something that I don't know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be true. Do you honestly think I just made up the fact that certain—and obviously, not all—resistance fighters slaughtered women and children after the war? Not a chance. I’ve heard it from people I trust personally, and there are firsthand accounts from those who actually witnessed it. I am deeply convinced it happened. I realize this doesn't fit neatly into your rigid little worldview where the resistance were nothing but noble heroes and Josip Broz Tito was some kind of saintly father figure to every ethnic group in the country, so I suppose that’s why you find it so impossible to accept.
I’ll honestly never live down the fact that when I posted that photo—the one showing the braids of those women and girls murdered at the Wounded Knee site—you actually had the nerve to ask what kind of aliens they were. 🤮

I’ll always be on the hunt for the truth and what’s actually fair.

Unlike those other groups who act all defensive and territorial just to keep people from "contaminating" their precious topics, everyone from the Politics boards was actually invited here to jump in and share what they think.

northernsailor8 said:You’re basically the textbook definition of the boy who cried "Wolf!" If you want us to take action on a post immediately, ask someone else to report it or just wait until we see it ourselves. If you're the one filing the report, there’s a smaller chance it actually gets sanctioned.

So, all nine moderators over on the Politics board are just straight-up ignoring my reports? Well, at least you're being honest about it.

I can't exactly go running to someone else to file a report because I'm sitting at 226 posts out of a possible 200—and the last 30 were nothing but notifications about warnings. I'm not deleting anything; honestly, I'm curious to see how high this number can actually climb.

None of my reports have been for borderline stuff, either. Every single one contained clear elements that warrant a penalty. So, your opening sentence is both factually wrong and pretty insulting.

But hey, I guess one should learn to appreciate the little things. For instance, the fact that you've publicly admitted to ignoring my reports on rule-breaking posts. Double standards, just like I've been saying for ages.

lonebadger6 said:Look, I’m not looking for a fight here, I just want to clear the air—maybe those posts were totally worth reporting, but I’m telling you that because of your mindless reporting spree (especially while you're sitting in ban land), I honestly can't be bothered to even open your reports anymore. Seriously, when I open a report labeled "shameless and disgusting insults to all believers" only to find a perfectly normal post, and then that happens fifty more times... at that point, I'd rather just watch France.

First off, I’m not the only moderator on Politics, so you aren't dealing with just me.

And regarding your thread—the standard procedure is to wait 24 hours after a report is filed. Those 24 hours haven't passed yet. Besides, from what I can see, MrBeast (not 23) is already banned, and Kiss Me already got a warning. Both of those actions happened before you even opened this thread. So, really, what's the actual issue here?

Maybe before the thread was opened, but certainly not before I filed my appeal on the other thread. Basically, action was only taken once I submitted my complaint.
If I wrote in the report that there was "shameless and disgusting insults to all believers," then that’s exactly how it was—or at least, that’s how I perceive it as a believer. Of course, the author of the post and any moderators who aren't religious don't necessarily have to see it that way.

lonebadger6 wrote in another thread:
***OFF-TOPIC *** The admin asked us not to drift into other topics here, just to give a quick answer since the conversation is already moving. Linda Young38, if you think someone is being punished just for having an opinion, you aren't going to get very far. A bunch of mods and supermods have already explained the rules regarding your warnings to you; if you still don't get it, let's just assume you're choosing not to. Things aren't going to change just because you're being stubborn. As for your reports on other posts, I'll be blunt: I barely even look at them anymore. Sorry, but this is volunteer work that takes up way too much time as it is, and with all due respect, you are one of the biggest spammers when it comes to reporting. Out of ten of your reports, nine and a half are completely misses and totally pointless (no matter how many dramatic adjectives you use to dress them up), and honestly, you're just hurting your own credibility (meaning any actual valid reports you might make). I don't have the energy to deal with your reports anymore—there are eight other colleagues out there, and whether they've looked at them and decided they don't warrant a warning, or if they're just ignoring them like I am, I have no idea. ***END OFF-TOPIC***

And here is my response:
None of my reports on problematic posts are "spam." Every single one of those posts absolutely deserved a warning. I’m not demanding or expecting that every single one actually gets penalized—obviously, the moderators have the discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis—but to admit that you aren't even looking at them? That’s just irresponsible.

I pointed out three specific posts on the page linked, and for every single one of them, if I or anyone perceived as "conservative" posted that, we'd be handed a red card right now (which would likely lead to an immediate or near-immediate ban). Meanwhile, these two do nothing but troll and insult everyone in sight, seemingly with the blessing of the moderators, because I haven't seen a single person issue them a red card once.

Why is it that the moderators over at this forum let certain users get away with constant insults without any consequences? They just ignore the reports on those posts, yet they’ll nitpick everyone else and hand out bans just because someone holds a different opinion.

Take this thread about the St. Louis Bridge for example:


MrBeast goes on for two whole posts calling people trolls and insulting them personally, while some other user calls their writing "pathetic vomit" and "total nonsense." All three posts were reported, but not a single one resulted in a penalty.

Why is it that the moderators over at this political forum let certain users get away with constant insults without any consequences? They just ignore the reports on those posts, yet they’ll nitpick someone else's grammar or tone and hand out bans just because they have a different opinion.

Take this thread about the Golden Gate Bridge, for example:

none spends two whole posts calling people trolls and being straight-up abusive, kiss me describes other people's arguments as "pathetic vomit" and "total nonsense." All three posts were reported, but absolutely nothing happened. No penalties, no nothing.

bluecyclist64 said:So why on earth am I getting notifications saying I'm blocked from accessing linked posts?

They probably got nuked in the meantime, so now they're invisible to everyone except the mods.

Casey Ramos31 said:Why can't you just answer the damn question?

And why do you think that is? Because his entire job description is basically just stirring up mud in this place. ☕

Jerry Robinson56 said:Dr. Miroslav Harmon could have taken action against it.
He demonstrated his commitment to integrity quite clearly when he publicly called out Milan Bandić's subordinates for their wiretapping, an act he shouldn't have been allowed to make, right?
We all know who understands integrity (and I'm not talking about you, dear 🙂 though you are perhaps naively innocent)

He was the head of both military and civilian intelligence.
We have already covered this, and I believe I have already proven to you that he fulfilled both roles.
Of course, that doesn't mean he is guilty, but he certainly possesses much stronger motives than Clinton.

Regardless of what the headlines were screaming, I'm convinced he wasn't the one behind the leak about the surveillance on Bandić. He takes his duty to protect secrets very seriously. To borrow a phrase from a mutual friend of ours, "he’s a black hole for information"—meaning he sucks everything up, but nothing ever leaks out.😁

I have no idea why you're insisting you proved he held both roles to me; I don't even remember us having that conversation. But no, he wasn't the head of military intelligence, even if he did coordinate with them occasionally during his time running the CIA-equivalent agency.

We've already nailed down Clinton's motivation, and frankly, it's pretty obvious—it's just pure, unadulterated resentment toward Harmon fueled by an inferiority complex. He simply couldn't hold a candle to him.

Jerry Robinson56 said:In an attempt to defend himself, he relies on nothing more than that transcript—which holds absolutely zero legal weight based on how it was presented—alongside a series of invalid conclusions.
Consequently, your assertion is absurd.
He’s attempting to twist the argument by suggesting that amnesty was granted and that Mexico cannot claim war reparations... simply because that was the arrangement. We just need a scapegoat. It’s a known tactic.
Besides, the senior figure is dead, so there is no benefit in pursuing him. Dead men, as a rule, rarely answer for their crimes.
The main villain didn't act in isolation; there is an entire network involved, some of whom, fortunately, remain under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the time being. >The goal wasn't actually about the Mexicans, but rather how to plunder the United States

So, your response regarding Clinton—as you put it—is that it’s obvious to everyone except "me" and Clinton himself that he provided the transcript 🙂 .... But let’s be clear, Clinton is a lawyer only in a very lateral sense.
It reminds me of the Inquisition in the case of Galile.

No, you've got it backwards. Clinton knows perfectly well that he was the one who handed over the transcript; you're just stubbornly convinced he wasn't.

Miroslav Harmon didn't need to protect himself from anything—he wasn't even among the suspects. Every move he made and his leadership within the intelligence services was a model of honor and integrity. It seems like any sense of guilt is something only you and Clinton can see.
The ones who profited most from looting America were those who had already climbed the ladder during the socialist era—people like Franjo Luković and his ilk—which had nothing to do with the war itself. Miroslav Harmon certainly wasn't part of the looting of America, nor did he profit from it; he lived strictly on his professor's salary. I'm not claiming that applies to the rest of the Harmon family (his brother and sister aren't quite as moral), but for him, it's the truth.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Has anyone actually stepped foot in the office of former President Harmon, as opposed to the former office of the President of the USA
... before Clinton established himself there?

You act like part of the elite when you cling to semantics; I hope you realize your conclusion is fundamentally flawed, regardless of how minor this point may seem.
I have deleted one post that would have been quite final.

Even if you're right (and we both know exactly who you're aiming at here), it has absolutely zero to do with the Brijuni transcript being discussed. It’s obvious to everyone except you—including President Clinton himself—that it was Clinton who handed those Brijuni transcripts over to the International Criminal Court. The goal was clearly to make the Prosecutor's Office's job easier and ultimately ensure Franjo Harmon's policies were condemned. Thankfully, that didn't happen during the proceedings against Ante Gotovina, Ante Markač, and Čermak. But please, do us all a favor and entertain us: what possible motive would Miroslav Harmon even have to pull something like that?

Jerry Robinson56 said:Forgive me, but it remains entirely unclear when exactly the other side came into possession of them.
One must be careful not to jump to conclusions like—it surely had to be Clinton. Clinton had absolutely no motive or reason to hand them over. Now, you are certainly entitled to your suspicions or your certainty regarding Clinton. However, it becomes problematic when you begin asserting that you are objectively correct without providing a single link or piece of corroborating evidence. Without establishing a motive, you haven't even identified a potential culprit.

Even that article specifies the origin—from the office of President Harmon, which implies it did not come from the office of President Clinton.
By simple deduction, one arrives at the conclusion that these were obtained before Clinton ever took office.

The transcripts come from the office of former President Harmon, not some files pulled from the office of the late former President Harmon. Back then, the only people who could get their hands on them were Clinton and whoever Clinton decided to let in. Besides, Clinton never even tried to hide the fact that he was the one "responsible" for handing those documents over to the International Criminal Court.

Jerry Robinson56 said:My opinion and final conclusions are entirely irrelevant here; I am merely the one who started this thread. That much is 😁. It is an idea inherited from the lineage of Ronald Reagan. As for the explanation, it is multifaceted.

Don't get mad at me, but I have to tell you straight: you're just talking nonsense. You haven't got a single leg to stand on, let alone any actual arguments or proof for what you're claiming.

feralpilot0 said:Yeah, right—as if regular folks on a forum have any power to censor anyone. 👍
That’s exactly why this thread exists in the first place.

The real issue here isn't just about one specific thing; it's about how we even got to this point and why, in my humble opinion, this thread shouldn't be locked yet. René Bitorajac, his song, and the drama surrounding them are really just the catalyst. In this context, they're secondary because we're actually debating much larger, more fundamental principles.

I realize that moderating this forum is a volunteer gig, and I truly respect the fact that the moderators and super-mods put in their own free time and effort to keep this place somewhat civilized and organized for all our different discussions. It makes total sense that they have more authority than the "regular" users due to those extra responsibilities. Most of them do a solid job, and I've actually gone out of my way to praise some of them in the dedicated thread.

However—and I’ve tried to point this out to the forum leadership multiple times now—things work very differently over in the Politics sub-forum. There's a huge roster of moderators there, and while I have nothing against most of them, there are a few who are incredibly biased. They seem to hand out red cards in bulk, which frequently ends up leading to outright bans.

I’ve been around here since 2009, mostly active, and in seven full years, I’ve only picked up a handful of red cards. Up until a few months ago, I had never once been banned. Then, suddenly, the cards started flying... 😁 ...it's just been one ban after another, some for three days, some for seven. Over the last two months, I’ve spent more time as a "gray" user than a "blue" one, and most of those red cards came from the exact same moderator, lonebadger6, along with a couple from FranKrsta, and then Bradley Sanders4 slapped me with a hate speech card on the Tomić thread—which carries a 500-point penalty—though super-mod William Bennett53 downgraded it to a different violation worth 200. Right now, I’m sitting at 216 private messages (out of a limit of 200) because the last twenty or so were all from moderators, mostly just notifications about cards. I'll admit part of the problem might be me—I can be pretty stubborn—but on the flip side, I don't go around trying to break the rules on purpose. Other users are complaining about these same moderators too, so I don't think I'm the only one feeling this way.

Bradley Sanders4 said:What exactly makes my post "trolling"? I see you're making a habit of repeating that. I didn't start any debate; I just responded to the claim that René Bitorajac would end up behind bars by pointing out two famous examples of satire where nobody actually went to jail. Maybe they should have just nuked the whole thread. But even if they did, it still doesn't make my post trolling.

I laid this all out in my deleted post (which you can see, since you're the moderator here). You didn't just use two examples—you used three. And all three were from the eighties, back when throwing people in prison for stuff like that wasn't the norm anymore. Before the era of the old regime ended, you could practically get locked up just for telling a joke or singing an indecent song.
(Hopefully, I won't get penalized just for talking back to you)

Alright. I don't feel like I was going off-topic, but whatever.

Anyway, I have a general question that I actually posted on another thread here a few days ago, but I never got an answer. Where am I supposed to go to comment on moderation if I can't even do it over on the PŽK?

lonebadger6 said:Your post was definitely off-topic, and honestly, I’ll be the first to admit I was an idiot for even chiming in... basically, I shouldn't have pointed out that a post about René Bitorajac and his song "Me, Americans" shouldn't be drifting into discussions about the old regime...

I was responding to Bradley Sanders4, who somehow escaped getting their posts wiped, and suddenly we're having this massive debate over whether satire and systemic criticism were even allowed back under the old administration. Oh, wait—she's a moderator, so I guess rules are more like suggestions for her. By the way, was she the one suggesting alternative thread titles, or was that your doing?

lonebadger6 said:No, what I'm actually saying is this:

It’s quite a miracle, really, how you only seem to delete posts that happen to be negative toward Bitorajac and his song.

Pure trolling, 🍿

Just like this inquiry, since it's basically just a list rather than an actual attempt at a coherent post...

Which you clearly know all too well 🍿 ☕ 🎉 🐔 🙂

If my post wasn't trolling, uncivilized, or off-topic (and it wasn't—you can check the thread regarding appeals against cards), then why on earth was it deleted?