urbanhound23 said:Right. Well, if you want to see how things actually work, take a look at the budget transparency reports for a city like Palm Springs. Everything is laid out there for anyone to scrutinize:
If you just type "salary" into the description filter, you get a direct line into every single payroll position in Palm Springs.
It’s pretty eye-opening. Any mid-level department manager is pulling in 12k-$4333. Most senior specialists are making at least 8k-$3000. And some department heads? They're looking at 13k to 15k-$6000 monthly.
Keep in mind, those aren't federal civil servant salaries—those are city administration roles. Pay scales vary wildly from one municipality to the next in the US. Actual federal pay isn't quite like that. Agencies often pay more than cabinet departments, some institutes have great perks, others are pretty low... it varies.
I don't quite get why Eric Adams is pushing back against the incinerator. If he’s actually worried about pollution, how can he ignore his own footprint? He and his wife have definitely contributed to air pollution with all those frequent flights just to climb the Himalayas or the Andes—assuming he's a mountain junkie, which, judging by my neighbors over in Canada, Canada, and Mexico, most people are...
It’s not crazy at all. It isn't just about how she messed up regarding Russia—she’s tripped up on so many other things too. If you look back at what I listed about her in other threads back in 2015🙂... I mean, honestly, "naivety" is a pretty easy way to land a seat leading a superpower (you can't even get elected to lead a small local community of 2,000 people if you're that clueless, let alone hold a major global position) . Sure, she’s not the only one to blame—there are plenty of others—but she definitely bears a huge chunk of it. She's responsible for a lot of the mess within the European Union. Putin is the one responsible for the war in Ukraine.
This isn't some episode of "Servant of the People."
Let’s skip all the talk about being weighed down by guilt or making excuses🙂...
P.S. The West is never going to truly grasp Russia—they'll never understand how they actually think. Just look at how the West ignored everything happening in the USSR under Stalin... actually, they stayed silent about it (and according to Russian demographers, somewhere between 60 to 110 million people perished within the USSR from 1914 to 1958), while guys like Sartre were even finding excuses for that kind of situation. Sapienti sat.
Anthony Hill5 said:Oh, how incredibly considerate they were. Did they bother to ask the Baltic states or the Poles for their opinion regarding Nord Stream? Of course not.
How foolish and naive German policy regarding Nord Stream 2 truly was has become painfully obvious to everyone today. Angela Merkel will be remembered in history as one of the most naive politicians of the modern era, and her policy of appeasement will go down in the annals of history right alongside Chamberlain's.
The Minsk agreement was a compromise that didn't strip Ukraine of its sovereignty, but rather restored it. In the Donbas, 83% voted for Ukrainian independence from Russia (the USSR), only to have 90% vote for autonomy just a few years later—though decades have already passed since then. It isn't all black and white, even regarding Russia; naturally, Russia politically supported the demand for such autonomy because they are themselves a federation (the Russian Federation). How much they were bluffing to achieve their actual criminal objectives is another matter entirely, but that has nothing to do with Germany or France.
The Minsk agreement was no compromise whatsoever; it was forcing Ukraine, under the threat of a Russian gun, to sign Minsk just so Germany and France could continue enjoying the blessings of peace and prosperity.
With that agreement, the Germans and the French essentially handed a handful of Putin's mafia thugs from the Donbas veto power over critical Ukrainian matters, such as joining NATO and the EU. The Minsk agreement effectively signaled the end of Ukrainian sovereignty and independence, which is precisely why it was never actually implemented.
Eight years after Minsk, we find ourselves facing exactly this situation today, thanks again—I repeat—to the misguided, naive, and utterly senseless policy of Germany.
It’s dangerous to assume Merkel was just being naive. Not at all—a truly naive person wouldn't have pushed things as far as she did. She was extremely ruthless... more like a deliberate undertaker for Europe...
Monitor.hr and forum.hr actually belong to the same owner—Anderlon. On today's Monitor.hr homepage, right at the top, there's a headline about a Jerusalem Post article regarding Goldstein, and they've even included a link to the full story over on Index.😬 So, really, there's no reason to keep this thread closed...
Sarah Cooper58 said:You weren't warning anyone about COVID—you were just spreading panic by repeating the same old story over and over. Honestly, I got so fed up that I moved over to Reddit where we could actually have a normal conversation about everything... just everything...
That’s exactly what I’m going to do now—I don't need this.
Well, regarding the NNNI thread on Reddit, it has that same "panic-mongering" tone as those folks back in February last year when a few of us were posting...😍
Sarah Cooper58 said:I get what you mean by that phrase—no need to explain, I already know what's going on without you telling me...
Look, using an expression like "people are saying so on the subway" is totally fine in the Ladies' Lounge section—that's just how things work over there.
But bringing that same vibe into a serious debate anywhere else on this forum? That’s just mocking people and derailing the conversation...
You're trying to lump everything together right now, and it's just not working.
By the way, even I’ve used that exact same phrase two or three times in the Ladies' Lounge—so please, let's skip the "moralizing" about what I should be saying to the girls there.
_____
E:
Yeah, a water taxi—if I remember correctly, in my case...🤔. 😁
Are you seriously suggesting the Ladies' Lounge is some "unserious" sub-forum? If that's the logic, then every single topic and discussion there is "unserious," which is exactly why talking about subway rides or ferry trips is allowed. Why would public figures be any less protected than, say, big banks—which I won't even name specifically because I just make general points when criticizing them?
I’d love for the forum rules to actually specify which sections are "serious" vs. "unserious," and exactly what we can talk about where. Maybe even a list of terms we're only allowed to use in specific sections... Nothing should happen without clear rules. Also, could someone please define what counts as a "serious discussion"? If the goal is to make the Politics section "serious" too—whatever that's supposed to mean—then 90% of the posts there should probably be deleted since they wouldn't meet that standard. Just be careful what you wish for, lest it comes back to bite you...
Regarding IP and the supposed "protection" of forum users. I used to be a moderator for Tourism (and one other PDF). Back when threads were popping up about specific travel agencies, there was a lot of heat—lots of complaints against certain companies. Those agencies would put massive pressure on me to just scrub the posts and penalize the users who wrote them. I didn't cave. Instead, I told them they were more than welcome to register on the forum themselves and address those criticisms and complaints publicly... The companies being called out? They didn't even take the opportunity to respond to the feedback. Instead, they just kept coming at me—persistently. They even threatened me with personal lawsuits because I wouldn't play ball. I did my homework on those agencies, though, and it turned out they were getting sued by people all over the place. I brought the whole thing up in the moderator PDF to see how the others would handle threats like that, and we had a quick debate about it. I don't have access to the moderator area anymore, so I can't drop a link... but it doesn't really matter now. The bottom line is that some of those agencies eventually went under, and those lawsuits actually moved forward. If I had buckled under the pressure and the threats—if I’d deleted the comments and banned the users—other people would have ended up booking trips with those scammers, totally blindsided because they never saw the warnings about their bad experiences. Look, obviously not every critique on a forum is valid—there’s plenty of nonsense out there, which you'd expect—but that’s exactly why I gave the criticized companies a chance to speak up. That’s what a forum is for: a discussion where everyone gets a shot to reply if they feel they've been wronged. Not one colleague or supervisor stood up for me back then. So much for "protecting" moderators, let alone the users...
One more thing: late February last year (right after Wuhan shut down), a few of us were warning everyone about the dangers of COVID-19. We were constantly getting warned or banned by a moderator who insisted it was nothing more than a common flu. Sadly, the death tolls in America and globally tell a different story—that disease was way more serious than the flu. For those of us who kept getting banned or flagged, we never even got an apology for being right about the epidemic risks.
And then there was the time I got attacked for supposedly making things up regarding offers for the Port of New York City (rejections). Various news outlets eventually released reports that confirmed exactly what I’d said—things I "just heard on the subway," apparently. I'm still waiting on an apology from the users who attacked me and claimed I was lying about how those offers were being rejected due to outside pressure.
Linda King said:Well, it looks like they definitely have some level of trust from their colleagues here. For what it's worth... Sure, if someone shows up at your house or rings your doorbell, getting an IP address—whether through a forum leak or a legal court order—is really just step one. You'd still need the ISP to step up and actually hand over the identity behind that IP. I mean, it's possible. It's also possible back in 2010, this forum was basically the Wild West. Who knows? A little reassurance from the admins and Anderson regarding privacy on the Forum wouldn't hurt, though...
But going back to how this started, Mark Harris66 kicked the whole thing off by saying she heard about it over at Women's Corner—and after a quick (and unusual) clarification, she even provided links to the sources. So, she wasn't lying here; she was just basing her belief on stories from two female members that plenty of others believed too.
That's enough for me regarding nn (to whom I owe an apology)—anything else pretty much falls outside the scope of this specific thread (what was actually happening at the time). Though, honestly, I'd love to know...
Thanks so much for sharing that story, I really appreciate it.🙂.
Sarah Cooper58 said:That’s just your way of being condescending—not to mention how you tweak edits until they're unrecognizable.
Nobody actually thinks you're getting your intel from the subway... 🙄
You basically try to derail the debate using fake data you can't back up because it's made up. Then you just casually brush it off by saying you heard it on the train.
And honestly, nobody even asked where you got that phrase.
It's a whole other thing how you rushed things and accused the forum of leaking data—even though you have zero proof for that either.
It wasn't said dismissively. It’s a shame you aren't over at Women's Corner, so you could accuse most of the women there of being dismissive too. I didn't rush anything. If you want proof, go ask the ladies on here who brought up those "accusations"—the ones that paved the way for this habit of ignoring actual sources and using forum slang instead. Clearly, despite me explaining it multiple times, you still haven't caught the context behind that phrase...
Where did you find a quote where I said Savannah could compete with Long Beach? Nowhere. That’s just not what I said—you're taking things way out of context... I've said countless times that the bids for the New York City port were rejected because of Hamburg and the Editor—and actually a few others too, but let the media report on that. Didn't the papers report last month how we were pressured into turning down a port bid?
I warned this forum years ago that Walmart would start sliding once they bought up Target and stuff like that. And sure enough, that's exactly what happened...
What's untrue about criticizing banks for breaking the law? Especially since the US court ruling confirmed it too... Did I provide plenty of links for my claims? I did. And I used mainstream media links or actual scans—not some obscure random websites... And you? You've provided nothing. Everything you say is just "anything that might be good for America" without any substance—it's basically mocking American potential...
People like you are the perfect pawns for this kind of American government!
And why is everyone suddenly talking about IP? I only brought up those claims to explain where that "talking on the subway" phrase came from... I have to admit, I was pretty surprised by how literally people took that phrase. Does someone actually think people discuss sensitive matters while riding the subway?
Journalists write "in the corridors," while forum users say "on the subway or the ferry"... You can't seriously think journalists are just eavesdropping in hallways and taking notes on what passersby are saying...
Sandra Brown18 said:Hi everyone, this whole debate started because someone claimed some users get a pass when they use phrases like "heard it on the subway" and stuff like that... Then came the explanation about where that phrase actually comes from and why people use it. I even pointed out the original source and the specific incident that kicked this habit off. So, here was the starting point: http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...postcount=3884 Ever since people got spooked by that, there's been this extra caution about citing sources. Even one of our most active female members—who I think most of you know—backed up similar claims here: https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3984
The site rules don't actually say you have to cite a source for every single thing you say.
Just so I don't have to edit this again:😁 Basically, the first link points to claims made by a user regarding that Adobe file about searching for Intel info. The second link is a claim from another user who insists that data sharing is standard practice. I'm just passing along the sources... none of this is my own opinion.
Scott Long71 said:But they say if a corporation disputes a claim as false—and you're posting anonymously—it gets taken down.
The rule is pretty straightforward... Doesn't apply to me, though—no big company has come out publicly to dispute what I've been saying. It's just random anonymous users on Reddit arguing with my points...