Does my whole post—and honestly, just my general way of writing about stuff—come across like I’m trying to be offensive? Could we try to be a little more objective? Maybe someone could keep a closer eye on what people are actually posting here. It would be great if we could just ban and delete those trolls who do nothing but insult others all day.
I didn't say "you're a crazy idiot"—that would have been an actual insult. I wrote that... Probably. She’s dealing with some serious psychological issues. If I had just told her that... Probably. My partner has diabetes, so I suggested she spend some time looking things up online to get a better handle on the symptoms and how it all manifests. Would that be considered an insult?From a medical standpoint, a disorder or illness is just that—a diagnosis. There’s really no reason to label someone based on their condition. I suggested she look into that disorder and walked her through how it’s been affecting things between her and her husband. Honestly, she really laid it all out there—it’s pretty clear how much that disorder defines her perspective. Take a look at her posts, and maybe do a quick search on the Democratic Party. Honestly, things could be even worse—there are definitely some sociopathic traits showing through.
I was being intentionally a bit more blunt just to see how she’d react—people with BPD tend to be really sensitive to personal criticism.
It’s all about the fact that she could actually get custody of her kids tomorrow. Do you guys realize how much that matters? Those kids are going to have a rough time, constantly being psychologically worn down by their mother.
Am I sure I’m not a neuropsychiatrist? That was my title back when I was still in school.
If the post were still up, anyone—even Tonkica—could have used it to challenge my assumptions or back them up. She could have reached out for help and explained her behavior to her family and husband. Well, I guess I'll just leave that up to whoever decided to delete my post.
Could someone please explain why this post was removed?
tonkica said:I started seeing a psychiatrist a few months ago. He even joined a couple of our sessions. My husband says he doesn't see any real progress at all, and he thinks I need to figure things out on my own—that there isn't a shrink in the world who can help if I don't actually want to change.
Your husband has a point. It’s very possible you’re dealing with BPD (borderline personality disorder). Your behavior sounds like a textbook case of it. What did your doctor say? Even they can't give a clear diagnosis if you aren't being honest or if you're trying to manipulate the situation.
Try Googling BPD; there's even a good resource called "Stop Walking on Eggshells."
I want to, I just don't know how to stop everything from driving me crazy! He’s become so cold and distant. He wasn't like this before; he used to hold me so close, and I know I'm the one who messed this up.
He hasn't changed; you have. He’s just realized that the sweet, kind person he first met isn't there anymore. Now, you're just someone bitter who constantly picks at him, blames him, breaks things, and screams...
I know all of that! I want to fix things, but he just won't go back to how he used to be. His distance drives me insane—it's like he's totally shut down and guarded. I desperately wanted to get us back to how we were, but he won't budge, even though he said he wanted to forgive me and move past everything!
He doesn't need to "fix" himself to be who he was before. You've pushed him so far that withdrawing and distancing himself is his only way to protect himself from your outbursts and yelling. He's just reached his limit.
I know it isn't healthy for me to be this angry and resentful toward him, but I really am. I can't honestly say he's a bad person, but his coldness and the way he's checking out is just driving me mad!
Stop focusing on your husband and what he "should" be doing. That chapter is closed. You essentially killed the relationship with how you acted. It wasn't even about the infidelity; it was the overall pattern of your behavior.
Focus on yourself and your own issues now. If you can't do it for yourself, do it for your kids.
Harold Harris5 said:The Americans didn't care one bit about Georgia until they discovered massive oil reserves, and then suddenly, they were sending in the troops...
It’s just funny how those supplies are kept so secret that nobody actually knows they exist—much like those huge US divisions supposedly stationed in Georgia.😂
Linda Roberts2 said:With vacuum bombs, there isn't much left of buildings or people... but with an Atomic bomb, something usually remains.
I wouldn't say that. Maybe do a little more reading first.
The term "vacuum bomb" is mostly just catchy shorthand used by journalists for what military experts call an FAE or aerosol bomb. They aren't some new invention either; they've been around for fifty years. The Americans used them in Vietnam, and the Russians used them in Afghanistan.
Comparing an FAE to a nuclear weapon is kind of like comparing a firecracker to a massive heavy bomber. Even the most powerful FAEs barely hit ten tons of force, while thermonuclear weapons are measured in dozens of megatons. We're talking about a difference of millions.
Linda Roberts2 said:What kind of logic is that? Saying radiation from maybe 20 bombs won't destroy the planet... I mean, look at how little anyone actually cares about the economy during wartime. We saw exactly how that played out with Nazi Germany, where the Allies just kept leveling everything pointlessly toward the end of the war. Besides, Russia is sitting on vacuum bombs now that are arguably even more devastating than atomic weapons.
🤦 I think you might be mixing up science fiction with reality.
Linda Roberts2 said:I was reading up on secret contingency plans for nuclear war. It's pretty wild that major powers don't actually plan direct nuclear strikes against one another because of the whole mutual retaliation thing.
You probably read some nonsense written by someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about—likely just some amateur journalist. For twenty-five years, opposing superpowers have been drafting attack strategies (and counter-attack responses) specifically targeted at one another. They've mapped out everything from limited tactical nuclear strikes and neutron bombs to full-scale total war. They even bring in teams of psychologists, sociologists, and various other experts to try and predict how the other side would react to any given move.
Attacking third-party countries or alliance members that don't host nuclear weapons and aren't strategically vital isn't even part of the equation.
The fallout would hit the allied nations—specifically NATO members without their own nuclear arsenal. In my opinion, America should never allow a NATO base on its soil.
Under nuclear doctrine, an attack on a NATO base would trigger a nuclear counterstrike against the enemy's own bases.
First off, it’s not the water authority, but rather your local utility provider or water district.
From what I know, they don't charge you for routine meter replacements anywhere. Did they actually send you a bill? Where did this happen—what city or area?
Sometimes workers from public utility companies try to sneak in extra charges just to see if they can get away with it, and they can be pretty rude about it, too. I've had my fair share of run-ins with water department employees trying the same thing, even though they could tell pretty quickly that I knew exactly how the system works.
rowdyowl said:Even under a totally insane totalitarian regime like Ceaușescu's Romania, they didn't just open fire on everyone. It was only those ultra-specialized units, and they were cleared off the rooftops pretty fast.
Soldiers almost never shoot at their own people.
I think you're talking about indiscriminate machine-gun fire into a crowd of protesters. That just isn't going to happen.
Sometimes protesters can get really violent. In Greece, they used to throw Molotov cocktails at banks and government buildings, and unfortunately, a few innocent people got caught in the crossfire. If things spiral out of control like that, I think it's acceptable to target those specific individuals—especially if rubber bullets are an option.
crimsonsailor7 said:The post was deleted because I didn't want the discussion to go in that direction, since it started drifting away from the main topic.
But I wasn't the one who derailed the conversation!
The thread actually started heading that way several posts ago—my comment was just a response to what voorn7 wrote, which, by your own logic, also went off-topic. So why weren't those other posts removed too?
And honestly, if the topic is about sexism against men and discrimination, then refusing to let me mention what I wrote feels like banning any talk about the biggest gender discrimination issue in our society. It’s even worse when you consider that government institutions, which are supposed to be fighting discrimination, basically ignore it. It’s like talking about racism in the US but avoiding the topic of racism against African Americans. No offense intended, Katherine, but I’d really like an answer from a supermod or an admin. In my view, this is a serious matter, and your intervention feels like censoring the truth about discrimination and systemic issues in our society.
Why was my post removed from the thread "Is there such a thing as chauvinism against men?"
Quote: voorn7 said:The truth doesn't just rely on statistics. Statistics can be easily manipulated. With stats this lopsided, there isn't much room for manipulation!
And those numbers are actually even worse—in 99% of cases, custody is awarded to the mother! There’s no error there. We should only be comparing cases where both parents want the kids and have relatively equal circumstances.
Statistically, about 11% of children aren't placed with their mothers, but that includes the 6-7% of mothers who abandoned their children (fathers abandon them at three times the rate). A tiny percentage involves mothers passing away, so obviously, the kids can't be with them. You also have many older kids (over 14) where the court is required to respect their preference to live with their father.
So, the statistics aren't just bad; they're catastrophic—proof of systemic discrimination. Quote: Instead of those stats, I'd rather read an actual scientific or psychiatric study on who is objectively more capable of being a parent. Well, when even the statistics themselves serve as evidence of blatant systemic bias (where kids are routinely handed to mothers who have been proven to be abusive), then we really ought to look at those scientific studies on parenting ability, right?
Are you aware that those "scientific" studies are often written by pseudo-experts who specialize in exactly those cases where children are assigned to abusive mothers? Would you consider that objective?
My post was completely on topic; it describes the worst kind of male chauvinism happening in America today. Other users were posting about this both before and after me. I'm just stating a sad truth, and I wasn't insulting anyone. It was post #36.
So, why was it deleted?
Like any other post, it was meant for discussion. I wouldn't mind if it were banned, but there should be a reason for it.
I already hold back from posting on many threads because nonsense is tolerated while mods often seem biased.
If I can't express my opinion, there's no point in coming here.
Nicholas Gomez4 said:And here's some more fuel for the fire... pretty telling stuff 🤷
“Tactical nuclear weapons were used, at least one in Iraq and several were used in Afghanistan -- in the Tora Bora Mountains,” Peter Eyre, a Middle East consultant, said. Eyre noted that the nuke dropped on Afghanistan's Tora Bora was so massive it basically triggered an earthquake. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/212827.html
Basically, Tora Bora was just a testing ground for nukes—using guys in turbans as the target practice...
Still, Peter makes a solid point here. The analyst went on to say that the use of such lethal weapons by US military, which is a gross violation of the Geneva Convention, has been sanctioned by the US presidents; thus they should be prosecuted for war crimes. "In America, the ultimate commander in chief is the president," Eyre said, adding that the President has the final say in using such weapons
So yeah, maybe this topic isn't as crazy as people think...
It would be great if you didn't repeat nonsense from disinformation outlets. You just can't hide a nuclear explosion. If it's above ground, there's no way people wouldn't notice. Even an underground blast has its own specific seismic signature.
If actual nuclear weapons had been used, it would have been the number one news story on every major media outlet in the world.
Daniel Ward87 said:Sorry, but I don't see anything offensive here. The tone is a bit sharp, sure, but I wouldn't call it an insult.
I agree that what counts as offensive is pretty subjective.. But I've actually been flagged for things similar to this before—my replies were labeled as trolling, even though I was just responding to insults that I didn't start in the first place.
So, maybe the rule should just be that we're allowed to defend ourselves. On other American forums, mods let you push back against indirect insults, as long as it doesn't turn into an all-out shouting match.
I also think mods should pay closer attention to who's actually contributing to the discussion versus those who are just constantly tearing everyone else down.
Daniel Ward87 said: You have to realize that calling something a "disinformation site" is a pretty broad label—what one person sees as fake news, someone else might just see as the truth. But hey, thanks for the input regardless.
Let me clarify. When people start talking about Western mercenaries, special forces, or CIA agents being inserted into Libya, it’s all pretty unverified. Honestly, it just feels like part of the usual folklore you see on leftist, anti-American forums.
If a site claims there were about 2,000 American tanks piled up in Afghanistan, another 2,000 in Iraq, plus an extra 10,000 armored vehicles in the region due to an attack on Iran—all while simultaneously reporting that two atomic bombs exploded in US arsenals back on September 27th—isn't that just straight-up disinformation garbage? It’s full of stuff you could debunk in seconds. I actually reported a link just like that one, but I didn't notice any mods stepping in. So, that's the kind of link I was talking about.
How did I even give him an opening? Isn't it just incredibly frustrating having to explain ten times that you didn't actually say something? Basically, Anton is just making things up to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. That feels pretty insulting, doesn't it? And if he's being intentional, it shows in his next post where he claims he read everything perfectly. It’s not just that, though. Regarding my concise scenario of a potential attack (which is realistic!), he responds with: "I love these internet generals. Why haven't you joined NATO or a US MVP? I mean, they've been struggling with those Taliban guys over there for 10 years, yet you think you could wrap this all up in 2 or 3 days. It'd be a shame to let that talent go to waste." So, he's being insulting and questioning my knowledge, even though he hasn't actually provided any arguments to prove my assessment is wrong. Either that, or he pulls my points from other discussions just to mock them without any basis, or asks for details I've already explained, and so on.
Don't get me wrong—he isn't any worse than the rest. Plenty of people here act like experts despite having very little actual knowledge. You see forum users claiming Iran is going to launch 11,000 or even 300,000 ballistic missiles at their enemies.
But the guy is provoking me and attacking my expertise, and then when I defend myself, I'm the one who gets a warning.
Let's look at it through the lens of US legal principles regarding provocation.
If someone provokes or insults me, and I snap back, a court will either clear both of us or penalize both of us. Usually, however, the person who started the conflict ends up with the harsher penalty. I don't see why Anton hasn't been banned since he's sitting at 100 points.
I really have no intention of arguing about warnings. I try to be a serious member of this forum. If my opinion isn't valued, or if the standard is such that I deserve this kind of treatment, then I'll just hold back from posting in threads where the moderation is like this. I'll leave the floor to those who mostly post unrealistic fantasies and nonsense.
Best,
P.S. Generally speaking, on these threads—especially in The Scotsman—people are allowed to write whatever they want, including blatantly false or totally exaggerated info. They drop links to various disinformation sites that peddle the latest nonsense. And nobody ever holds them accountable for it.
I tried to respond politely to him and others in my posts (sorry, things got a little mixed up in the replies):
Basically, some people—who, frankly, are military strategy hacks—suggested the possibility of a retaliatory Iranian attack on Arab Gulf countries, which Kansas and I debunked with solid arguments.
But a lot of unserious users don't actually read the posts, so they keep pushing this idea about tank warfare in Iran, even though neither I nor any other serious commenters have mentioned that. So, I constantly find myself having to defend against these straw man arguments:
Then Nick Anton goes ahead and insults me again, dismissing my points:
He keeps trying to pin that "tank warfare in Iran" nonsense on me, saying:
"What kind of damn desert terrain? Have you ever seen Iran in photos or been there, God forbid?"
So, this guy is insulting me for the second time. And for the second time, he's attributing something to me that I didn't say—something I've spent about ten posts explaining isn't true! I told him he was being unserious because he clearly missed the ten different posts where I explicitly or indirectly denied it. And I get a 35-point penalty?
What kind of moderation is this? Please look into everything I've laid out here. Regarding the military side of the discussion, I'm one of the most serious commenters here—it just doesn't seem right that someone can insult me without any basis and have the moderators tolerate it. Either I didn't deserve the strike, or at least five or six other users on this thread deserve a month-long ban.
Generally speaking, on the Scotsman threads, it seems like all sorts of people are allowed to write complete nonsense, just venting their own complexes and unrealistic views on global politics. As for the Libya threads, I honestly lost interest because of all the garbage being tolerated there.
If this kind of trivializing of topics continues, serious commenters aren't going to participate anymore. Is that really the goal of this forum?
Since the dispute falls under the jurisdiction of the courts in Mexico, your best bet would be to seek legal advice there first. The laws are likely pretty similar, but there are always those little legal loopholes and different ways judges interpret things. It’s tough to give any solid advice without seeing the actual case files. I don't even know the current status of the property—for instance, if it's part of the investor's bankruptcy estate or something like that. You'll probably need to file a lawsuit and put a lien on the property deed. If there isn't a reciprocity agreement in place, the Department of State handles the approvals for registration in America. It might be worth reaching out to the Department for help, though from what I've seen, you shouldn't expect much in the way of actual assistance.