Posts by Brian Edwards6

I’ve provided a breakdown of both deletions.👍

Nathan Kelly5 said:... What is the point of having a thread for "police investigation" if my posts regarding police investigations in Columbus keep getting deleted...

This is the comment of yours that was removed:

A Torcida greeting—finally, someone has spoken the truth. Until the police department is placed under actual Civilian oversight, we'll just keep seeing this old-school "boys club" mentality, where they try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with these useless commissions and internal reviews.

A brutal verbal takedown; definitely worth a read.

The thread was designed specifically to assist people dealing with direct police investigations involving them, and that is how it has functioned for quite some time. Your comment doesn't fit that specific scope, nor did I see any actual question or invitation for a substantive debate. Discussions regarding lawsuits, complaints, civilian oversight, and all that other business don't belong in this particular thread. Furthermore, I’ve already requested that this topic not be turned into a discussion about police conduct at sporting events.👍

Nathan Kelly5 said:... And this censorship has been going on for at least two or three years now; I haven't said anything until now, but I feel the need to speak up...

This is the only comment from you on that thread that was deleted:

Their lies are an insult to common sense; the first concerns about the lack of identification were raised ages ago. Now, twenty years later, they are still repeating the same falsehoods.
Given my past experiences with riot police, my opinion is that they are an uncivilized lot who regularly break more laws than they enforce, only facing consequences in extreme cases to pacify public opinion.
Because of all that, I can't say I felt sorry when one of them lost an eye during the riots, because these are people who violate the law and target citizens for years without ever being held accountable.

You dismissed my explanations as "lies" without providing any actual arguments, and along the way, you tended to generalize quite a bit. Then you generalized again, and finally, you ended up disparaging a man who was injured in the line of duty, once again relying on generalizations. I have no issue with criticizing the police—in fact, I often tell people to file complaints or sue—but your comments (specifically these two) simply aren't aimed in that direction and, in my view, have no place in this thread on this subforum. The site administrators will provide the final word on this.👍

Regarding those deleted comments you mentioned—honestly, I’m struggling to see the "systemic, long-term censorship" you're alleging. Besides, I haven't even been a moderator for nearly that long.🤷

Nathan Kelly5 said:... Secondly, I am demanding that my posts be sanctioned with warnings rather than being wiped away without a trace, as is apparently the custom here...

If that makes you feel better, fine by me. I’ve issued you a warning with an explanation (kept it brief there, but more detailed here) so that there is a paper trail that meets your expectations.👍

Nathan Kelly5 said:... Thirdly, I want to know where I can start a thread regarding the laughably pathetic internal police investigations that have been used to pull the wool over our eyes for years, while every other guild simply protects its own, all without being censored?...

My initial suggestion for a discussion like that would be the Politics section, though I’d ask you to hold off for a moment to let some other opinions surface first.👍

ruggedhawk20 said:The reason is quite simple: a criminal statute was violated. A crime was committed, and in this specific instance, the confession was made publicly right here on the forum...

I regret that I didn't manage to squeeze in one more question before my ban kicked in, but no—they aren't legally obligated to report that.👍

Nathan Kelly5 said:What if the phone actually belonged to someone else?

Irrelevant.👍

What’s the point of even calling the police?😕

I agree that if we were discussing this on the Legal forum, the scope would be much narrower, but there’s no harm in letting the topic stay here for now. We’ll just have to wait and see what the moderators decide regarding the final settlement policy.👍

No, you don't need a PhD in jurisprudence to wrap your head around this; a quick glance at some legal theory and a cursory skim through political science would suffice. Based on what you’ve laid out here, it seems you haven't quite bothered with either, so I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.🤷

Nobody can really call it until they see exactly what they're dealing with.🤷

You aren't even close to being right on any level, and you might want to take a look at the Legal Studies section where this is clearly laid out, or perhaps check the Political Science forum for a more expansive discussion on the matter.👍

"Lion" handles everything from leatherwork to custom commissions.👍

And you still haven't quite managed to give me a straight answer to my questions.👍

Do I really need to go through the trouble of rewriting what you already deleted from those several comments that were wiped out previously?🤔

casualtinker42 said:Is it even moral to rob this country blind? To just straight-up wreck the economy? Steal millions right from under everyone's noses.

Is myth and corruption actually moral? At every single level? Honestly, it's all just part of the game.

How are you even supposed to pay off your debts when you don't have a job? Like, seriously, what are you even meant to use?
People are barely scraping by. But hey, we’re the kind of people who don't like making a scene about it. This is just how we roll. Just getting by... day after day.

A nation of masochists.

We were the ones who handpicked the people responsible for the looting and the destruction. In that sense, this was always a political issue from the jump; now, it’s simply a matter of law. Legal proceedings are already underway, and I suspect we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet—there will likely be countless more cases to follow.👍

casualtinker42 said:Is it even moral to rob this country blind? To just straight-up wreck the economy? Steal millions right from under everyone's noses.

Is myth and corruption actually moral? At every single level? Honestly, it's all just part of the game.

How are you even supposed to pay off your debts when you don't have a job? Like, seriously, what are you even meant to use?
People are barely scraping by. But hey, we’re the kind of people who don't like making a scene about it. This is just how we roll. Just getting by... day after day.

A nation of masochists.

Almost every driver I pull over seems to lead with the same question: "Can we work something out?" It’s a classic. Unfortunately, around here, those kinds of negotiations still fall into a rather questionable category.👍

LeptiricaVau As stated by:
... how exactly are you supposed to settle your debts when you don't even have a job? With what, exactly?

Debt isn't some immutable law of nature. You can extend the term, negotiate a grace period, or settle on smaller installment payments—there are plenty of ways to navigate it. Honestly, in a significant number of cases, we wouldn't have even reached this point if things had been handled differently from the start.👍

How exactly does "hiding things from the public" translate to deleting a link that has been posted on this same thread multiple times already (seriously, did you even bother to count how many)?😕

feralranger said:

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
You haven't offered a single word in response.🤷

What do you mean, "nothing"? Why the sudden attempt to twist my words? I clearly stated that my expectation is simply for American police officers to be capable of using their own heads, much like the Spanish officers featured in that link.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
As far as actual evidence goes, all those deleted comments remain perfectly visible to the administration; and considering they were nothing more than the same tired rhetoric repeated ad nauseam, I suspect everyone else here is already intimately acquainted with their content anyway.👍

You’re out here actively concealing evidence from the public eye—it's nothing short of shady. Meanwhile, the administration has full visibility into all of this, leaving them perfectly positioned to decide whether they actually want to continue supporting your little echo chamber (an environment in which you, quite personally and rather deviously, always seem to take the lead).

I didn't ask you for the answer that happens to suit your convenience.👍

Let me reiterate:
Is there actually a moral dimension to refusing to pay off one's debts? It’s an interesting question, though perhaps more of a philosophical trap than a practical one.😕
How exactly is the police force going to decide which court rulings—or which specific regulations, for that matter—they actually feel like following, and which ones they’ll just conveniently ignore?😕

You haven't really said anything at all.🤷

As far as evidence goes, the administration can still see every single deleted comment. And since they were just repeating the same tired points over and over again, most people here already have a pretty good idea of what they said.👍

Regarding my overuse of the word "every," I’ll admit I went a bit overboard there. My apologies. Since we have two parallel discussions happening over in the Law sub-forum, I was writing here as if I were responding directly to the other thread. And yes, regarding the subject matter of that other debate, you seem to pull in that off-topic link in almost every single comment you make.👍

feralranger said:But you simply gloss over everything without actually answering a single question. Have you even seen the movie The Reader, which explores the potential fallout of mindlessly following rules and regulations? Did you grasp the core message of that film?

Or perhaps you missed the significance of how Spanish police officers act when they prioritize actual human beings over rigid bureaucracy?
Is it even possible to engage in a debate with you, or does every conversation inevitably devolve into you merely parroting legal statutes like a trained bird? 🤷

And which question, exactly, am I supposed to be answering?😕>

feralranger said:What kind of "debts" are we even talking about here? Vukic was essentially iskamatariti after his small business went under. I truly don't know how many times I have to explain this to you, but once it happens, you immediately resort to censorship by claiming I'm just being repetitive. Meanwhile, instead of actually catching criminals—you know, the actual drug dealers and such—the police have, quite shamefully, been complicit in the whole mess.

...and he won't even be able to claim his Social Security benefits if he hasn't paid up...

You dodged the question. I’m not talking about one specific incident; I’m asking about the concept of debts in general.👍

feralranger said:What kind of "debts" are we even talking about here? Vukic was essentially iskamatariti after his small business went under. I truly don't know how many times I have to explain this to you, but once it happens, you immediately resort to censorship by claiming I'm just being repetitive. Meanwhile, instead of actually catching criminals—you know, the actual drug dealers and such—the police have, quite shamefully, been complicit in the whole mess.

...and he won't even be able to claim his Social Security benefits if he hasn't paid up...

As the media coverage clearly shows, the police are still busy focusing their efforts on entirely different arenas. As for the specific case at hand, we aren't discussing that right now. You still haven't answered my point: how is the police department supposed to decide which court rulings (or regulations) they choose to respect and which ones they simply ignore?😕

feralranger said:You have gone ahead and deleted perfectly coherent responses simply because you cannot wrap your head around them and they don't happen to align with your personal worldview.

And what exactly would you have me do—call a profiteer riding on the backs of others something as benign as a "fragrant lavender grower"? If I did, I would merely be conforming to your standards and to a regime that sends special forces against families, turning them into the homeless, all while crime flourishes unchecked...

Because the truth regarding the other side of the coin—which is quite clearly laid out in the links—is precisely what strikes you most painfully, and it is the very thing that least fits into your narrative of one-sidedness.

The individual purchased the property in full compliance with existing regulations. Even if there happens to be a discrepancy, he didn't do anything to cause it.👍

feralranger said:You have gone ahead and deleted perfectly coherent responses simply because you cannot wrap your head around them and they don't happen to align with your personal worldview.

And what exactly would you have me do—call a profiteer riding on the backs of others something as benign as a "fragrant lavender grower"? If I did, I would merely be conforming to your standards and to a regime that sends special forces against families, turning them into the homeless, all while crime flourishes unchecked...

Because the truth regarding the other side of the coin—which is quite clearly laid out in the links—is precisely what strikes you most painfully, and it is the very thing that least fits into your narrative of one-sidedness.

Those weren't specialists.👍

feralranger said:You have gone ahead and deleted perfectly coherent responses simply because you cannot wrap your head around them and they don't happen to align with your personal worldview.

And what exactly would you have me do—call a profiteer riding on the backs of others something as benign as a "fragrant lavender grower"? If I did, I would merely be conforming to your standards and to a regime that sends special forces against families, turning them into the homeless, all while crime flourishes unchecked...

Because the truth regarding the other side of the coin—which is quite clearly laid out in the links—is precisely what strikes you most painfully, and it is the very thing that least fits into your narrative of one-sidedness.

Is it really because of that, rather than just the fact that other users are actually discussing the topic?😕

Besides, those links are still right there. Have you even bothered to count how many there are?🤔

As for Cacic and his fleet of vehicles, I truly have zero interest in it; discussing it doesn't affect me in the slightest.🤷

And as I’ve already stated, you are more than welcome to take your debates regarding Cacic, politicians, politics, or the administration over to the appropriate sub-forum, provided you follow its specific rules.👍

feralranger said:To keep things brief: intellectual conformity is what suffocates discourse on this platform. In our broader society, we far too often fail to debate legislation properly; instead, laws are typically pushed through via a single-minded adherence to party machinery and blind obedience.

We live in a nation that frequently practices this kind of forced consensus, and such dogmatic thinking permeates every layer of our social fabric—an unfortunate reality that your own actions illustrate quite vividly.
It really isn't surprising that we find ourselves in the current state of affairs.

I couldn't agree more. Besides, you have an entire sub-forum dedicated specifically to those topics here—one that happens to be among our most read sections, too.👍

feralranger said:I beg to differ. It is my belief that both politics and the law should be anchored by morality; in other words, just because immorality is unfortunately common doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered undesirable in those spheres.

Is it actually moral to default on your debts?😕