Posts by Ryan Vaughn7

Matthew Young35 said:Quotes from what?
Fine, go ahead. But make sure you include the context they were responding to. Let the community decide if this is actual trolling or just mindless spamming. I've already admitted to the insults.

"Stop acting like an idiot and pretend you actually believe they're going to make ten-year-olds wear condoms.
God, your brains are seriously scrambled." (first)

"Was your mom sending you to Walmart for groceries when you were fifteen, and you just picked up some Vatican pamphlets and misread them as political manifestos?
There isn't even a mention of the stuff you're bullying people about in the health class curriculum.
Grow up. Come back when you're a little older than fifteen." (second)

"Get lost with this idiocy.
No sane person is going to buy the story that teachers are going to sit kids down and talk about gender roles in pornography.
But hey, clearly you aren't sane." (third)

"Reading your posts, I get the impression you're an incredibly unintelligent person.
It's not because you're right-wing, either—I've run into plenty of smart conservatives—but you personally radiate a heavy lack of intelligence.
Maybe you have a good heart and wouldn't step on an ant, but intelligence and comprehension definitely aren't your strong suits.
Friendly advice: try reading slowly and attempt to understand what the author meant before you comment." (fourth)

We're looking at four separate posts sent within an hour of each other. Individually, they're worth more than a hundred insults. None of these people actually went after you with personal attacks, so honestly, you got off pretty easy.

Matthew Young35 said:I don't accept that explanation.
I wasn't spamming or trolling those threads. Does persistent, factual refutation of other users' blatant lies not count as spamming or trolling? Because if it doesn't, I don't know what does.
I didn't even insult Precise.

But fine, whatever. I got banned because I hit the first 100 points. I’m just wondering why the same standards aren't applied to everyone else on this forum.
As far as I know, insulting users usually nets you well over 30 points—at least, that was always my experience.
Why did Lilith only get 30 points for such a blatant insult?

Do you want me to pull up the quotes?

As for that colleague you're asking about, she actually got banned tonight. She finally hit her limit on points.

Matthew Young35 said:🤷
Then let the moderator explain themselves.
Penalties and warnings ought to be applied consistently. Why should one insult carry three and a half times the weight of an identical insult directed at another user?

You haven't actually asked yet. That warning was basically a cumulative strike for insults, trolling, and spamming across several posts in that thread, not just one single instance. Which is exactly what the warning description states, anyway.

jadeseal4 said:Journalist Karolina Vidović Krišto has been receiving threatening letters.
It seems quite evident that this situation carries heavy political undertones.
Naturally, while the threats directed at Koma Petrač were treated as a matter of political significance, Ryan Vaughn7 maintains the opinion that this particular issue doesn't belong on this forum at all.

The sentiment being expressed is essentially: "So what? She exposed Štulhoferov's dirty intentions, so she deserves to pay."

We can't really call anything until we find out who is actually pulling the strings behind these threats.

James Patel20 said:Yeah, I guess I was being a bit slow by handing you that exact link on a silver platter. ☕

I’ve got a perfect comeback ready to go, but I really shouldn't use it.

Looking at those two threads you pulled, the first one is total garbage—if it were posted today, it would've been deleted instantly. As for the second, you'll notice the starting premise is actually pretty different from yours.

James Patel20 said:What I was trying to get at is how people describe chamomile, compared to my own take on it.

Like Sophia Thomas7 said, you tried to dress that up pretty nicely. It wouldn't have worked.

James Patel20 said:The topic I brought up isn't just some random invention of mine; it's something people talk about all the time, everywhere.

"Everywhere"? Where exactly? Aside from stumbling upon a single post in the middle of nowhere on the internet and dropping a quote from a Freudian student—who, by your own admission, you don't actually understand—how does that prove your theory holds any water? What's actually new here compared to the five other threads already discussing similar stuff? Based on what specific analysis, study, or logic would you claim the left is more tied to sex than the right? On what grounds? Honestly, feel free to try and change my mind, because so far, this intro post just looks like trolling.

That's enough. Steven Wood72 is probably planning to write to the league commissioner to get permission to write about Messi's hormone levels anyway. After that, he'll likely head straight to the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, UEFA arbitration, UN arbitration, Social Security, and the WHO. We'll find out everything soon enough enough.

Jerry Rogers6 said:The real issue here is that under the guise of "medical treatment" in professional sports, far too many questionable—let's call them shady—substances and methods have been introduced, which have repeatedly proven themselves to be nothing more than blatant doping and nothing less.

I'm not taking sides here, and I’m certainly not rooting for any specific team; I’m just genuinely curious—so I’m asking.

So, is this a taboo subject around here?

🙂

It’s such a taboo subject that I might as well just write out all the dialogues in advance and announce who gets which penalty. I don't see the point in any of this.

Jerry Rogers6 said:Absolute garbage 🤣

:censorship mode on:

Look, I honestly don't have a clue what's going on with this whole Pep situation—really, I'm lost here.

And what exactly is a "taboo subject"? Is Pep going to sue us for causing him emotional distress? Seriously, what the hell is that supposed to mean? It makes zero sense.

Since we’re already diving into his physical condition anyway—I was listening to the commentators during the last game, acting all shocked that Pep actually made a substitution in the 80th minute—as if they didn't see him getting subbed out constantly back in the day... blah blah blah.
I don't see why on earth we can't discuss potential new developments in the Pep saga, especially considering Lance's recent admission about using a whole pharmacy's worth of various pills and whatnot—which, let's be honest, isn't exactly news to our friend Pep himself.🙂

Is this an off-limits topic, or just somehow "inappropriate" for this forum?

Take a breath and try to keep the complaining to a minimum if you can. It really isn't a good look. First off, the guy had a medical issue and was prescribed treatment. That’s an actual illness, not some joke or a way to stir up drama. You see it all the time in the pros—players dealing with asthma, diabetes, cancer, or even guys coming back from devastating car accidents. Does that make them better athletes? Honestly, probably. When you're fighting just to live a normal life, let alone play professional sports, you develop a different kind of grit. And this isn't about being a fan of one specific team versus another; it applies to everyone in these situations. We shouldn't be trolling someone's health struggles or turning their medical recovery into some kind of fan rivalry. Let's try being decent human beings first, and fans second. Is that really too much to ask? (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way. I’m not looking to start a massive debate here.)

Anthony Jackson2 said:Way too much trolling and insults in that thread—all because Andrew Hayes started it with that half-baked theory about Messi being a machine just because of growth hormone treatments rather than actual height. People have chewed over that topic a dozen times already, and honestly, I don't think anyone’s ever actually been convinced by it.

He’s been warned multiple times for trolling, and if he does it again, he’s getting banned. This is the last time I’m even bringing this up. I have zero intention of shouting into the void.

You’re something else. Of course it’s rigged. You clearly don't grasp the distinction between a PhD and an assistant professorship, nor do you understand the specific criteria for tenure or how different universities operate. People are right here quoting the exact differences, listing the requirements, citing regulations, and even providing links to academic papers, yet you just ignore all of it to push your own nonsense. My bad—you were just trolling. We’re done with this topic until you actually come up with some real evidence. Best of luck to you, though.

jadeseal4 said:It really comes down to those standardized criteria—or rather, the lack thereof—and how much they bend to the Minister's whims. It’s all about those little favors.🙄

Do you even have any shame, jadeseal4? Seriously? I closed that thread about Miller yesterday morning after explaining myself—I did it because there isn’t actually anything controversial about his situation. He’ll drop off the front page the second people start skipping over it, and honestly, that'll happen pretty soon since he's already sinking to the bottom.
On the other hand, even though sixteen different people have already laid out solid arguments for why there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Smith's title—which, let's be honest, feels like you're just bringing up petty distractions to stir the pot—this debate isn't going anywhere. It's never truly closing because it's all tied up in the broader conversation about that man himself.
So, I guess it’s up to you to tell me. Who really came out on top here—Miller or Smith? And honestly, who’s actually pulling the strings for whom?

mistyjackal14 said:Since you never actually cited me, I guess I’ll just have to assume why those images I posted from the reading list were removed.

Well, because the curriculum authors already went on the record during their press conference. They clearly explained what the recommended reading is, who it's intended for, and how it's being used. Honestly, there’s no point in us getting bogged down in a debate over materials that won't even reach the kids.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:a little advice from an ex-mod:
- ask for help over in the "policy" moderator corner
- when you feel like the flood of posts is starting to drown you, just write a thread saying "topic temporarily closed for maintenance," lock it, take a breath, exhale, relax, and dive into some editing... once you're done, just reopen it...

It’s always such a massive joy to get expert advice from someone with a twelve-page posting history. Thanks a million.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Ryan Vaughn7 hides his bias behind claims of poor moderation, and one hallmark of bad moderation is setting boundaries that are just too narrow for a real discussion...

That’s why I’m asking for my posts back and for those warnings to be cleared... ☕

Look, this "narrow" topic has already seen 2,100 posts in just 15 days. That’s nearly 400 posts in the last 24 hours alone. Seriously, go grab another coffee on me. You’re going to need a big one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_topic

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:but Ryan Vaughn7 won't let us post that in the "sex education" thread... 🙄

I'm not allowing it. This thread is specifically about sex education in American schools, and Ms. Sanger isn't even listed in the Module 4 curriculum reading list. It's 4. OFF topic, which will be flagged as 4. OFF topic, and we'll just end up repeating ourselves again.

the post that got deleted—the one you complained about
and then there’s this post that got flagged
The admins are watching this, along with the rest of the moderation team. These posts are basically identical. Please, don't try to play me for a fool just because you tacked on a few extra sentences and shuffled the order around.

Let me say this one last time. You didn't get flagged because of those book links; it was your interpretations and your comments that did it. Plus, you kept trying to repost things that were already deleted. Honestly, I'm done trying to make this thread work.