Posts by Brian Edwards6

feralranger said:By what specific rule of this Forum am I forbidden from calling a man a sleazebag when he bought a house at a massive discount by profiting off the tragedies surrounding the Vukic family?

Which particular rule of the Forum does that violate?

Furthermore, just because you fail to grasp the examples provided in the link doesn't mean they aren't interconnected.

In short, the government essentially managed to iskamatariti Vukic after his small business collapsed, and now he's being chased by federal agents simply because he failed to fill the coffers that those scoundrels use to LITERALLY warm their backsides on leather seats— LINK. It’s all connected, though clearly, such a notion won't fit within your narrow-minded worldview.

And how exactly would you attempt to SILENCE me, or enforce this one-sided orthodoxy, based solely on your inability to see how these different sides of the same coin relate? You handed me three strikes of thirty minutes each.

Shameful dogmatism. Truly shameful.

For instance, if you look at the second and third bolded sections of the Rules regarding insults—specifically points 1 and 7 of those Rules.👍

feralranger said:By what specific rule of this Forum am I forbidden from calling a man a sleazebag when he bought a house at a massive discount by profiting off the tragedies surrounding the Vukic family?

Which particular rule of the Forum does that violate?

Furthermore, just because you fail to grasp the examples provided in the link doesn't mean they aren't interconnected.

In short, the government essentially managed to iskamatariti Vukic after his small business collapsed, and now he's being chased by federal agents simply because he failed to fill the coffers that those scoundrels use to LITERALLY warm their backsides on leather seats— LINK. It’s all connected, though clearly, such a notion won't fit within your narrow-minded worldview.

And how exactly would you attempt to SILENCE me, or enforce this one-sided orthodoxy, based solely on your inability to see how these different sides of the same coin relate? You handed me three strikes of thirty minutes each.

Shameful dogmatism. Truly shameful.

Whether we are talking about specialists or the broader question of funding the treasury, that money goes toward education (whatever quality that may be), healthcare (regardless of how much out-of-pocket cost is involved), defense (which deserves its own separate discussion entirely)… and every other sector. In any case, I still don't see how this fits into that particular thread, but the link is right there for you. Actually, links. Have you bothered to count how many comments you've posted?🤔

feralranger said:By what specific rule of this Forum am I forbidden from calling a man a sleazebag when he bought a house at a massive discount by profiting off the tragedies surrounding the Vukic family?

Which particular rule of the Forum does that violate?

Furthermore, just because you fail to grasp the examples provided in the link doesn't mean they aren't interconnected.

In short, the government essentially managed to iskamatariti Vukic after his small business collapsed, and now he's being chased by federal agents simply because he failed to fill the coffers that those scoundrels use to LITERALLY warm their backsides on leather seats— LINK. It’s all connected, though clearly, such a notion won't fit within your narrow-minded worldview.

And how exactly would you attempt to SILENCE me, or enforce this one-sided orthodoxy, based solely on your inability to see how these different sides of the same coin relate? You handed me three strikes of thirty minutes each.

Shameful dogmatism. Truly shameful.

Your comments are still up. What was removed was your constant repetition of the same off-topic link (30 points), insulting behavior (30 points), and commenting on moderation within a thread (30 points). Regarding this supposed "one-sidedness," why don't you ask yourself why no one else participating in the debate who happens to be on "your side" (conditionally speaking, purely in terms of the "one-sidedness" argument) has been sanctioned?😕

feralranger said:

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
If a person purchases a property in full compliance with the law, they have fulfilled their obligation. Even if some underlying irregularity exists, the buyer bears absolutely no responsibility for creating that discrepancy.👍

It’s irrelevant. The man is nothing more than a vulture profiting from the misery of others. Honestly, calling him a leech feels like an understatement.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
They were hardly elite operatives.👍

It is quite frankly an embarrassment to the police department, regardless of how one chooses to view it. To make matters worse, the creditor failed to arrange for the removal of the property—an obligation they are strictly required to fulfill under the public procurement law—which renders the entire proceeding unlawful. But even beyond the legal technicalities, there is the more pressing issue at hand: the sheer lack of morality involved in such an act.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
And is that not simply because other users have already begun discussing the subject at hand?😕

Besides, those links of yours are still sitting there right where you left them. Have you actually taken the time to sit down and count exactly how many there are?🤔

As far as Cacic and his collection of vehicles are concerned, I truly have absolutely no interest whatsoever; discussing the matter doesn't move the needle for me in the slightest.🤷

I have already made myself quite clear on this matter: if you wish to engage in a heated debate regarding Cacic, the political class, or the current regime, please feel free to take that discourse to the appropriate sub-forum, provided you strictly adhere to its specific rules and regulations.👍

Have you still not grasped the underlying connection? People resort to predatory lending and outright violence because they aren't the ones filling the bags that these supposedly "distinguished and respectable" elites plunder just to fund their grotesque luxuries—all so they can literally warm their parasitic backsides on premium leather seats.

The connection is far too obvious. We are looking at two sides of the exact same coin, yet somehow, that reality fails to fit within the narrow confines of your singular perspective.

I won't drag this out any further. Please just respect the rules of the sub-forum you're posting in. Best regards.👋

I wasn't asking you to delete it; I was asking you to stop. Do you have any idea how many times you've dropped that same link? And more importantly, what on earth does it have to do with the topic of relocation?😕

As for your renamed post—it wasn't "censored." It was removed because you called someone a sleazebag without having the slightest clue about them. Based on everything we know so far, they haven't done anything out of line, and since they aren't even participating in this discussion, you can't exactly claim they provoked you.👍

hollowtrucker77 said:Honestly, you guys really should have moved this whole debate over to the legal subforum, because if you had, we wouldn't even be cluttering up the main board with this topic right now

Given that these questions are effectively unanswerable—as the attached evidence clearly demonstrates—there isn't actually a debate happening here, and frankly, this kind of commentary doesn't belong in the Legal subforum anyway.👍

rustywalker42 said:… Agriculture, Ford, Estée Lauder. All of these can function on a question-and-answer basis. But how much sense does that actually make?...

In a field as heavily regulated as Law—where breaking the rules often results in severe sanctions—it makes perfect sense.👍

rustywalker42 said:… (just to give an example where Brian Edwards6 insisted on editing every single message—while Nica stayed silent, he stuck to his guns, convinced he was right).
How am I supposed to propose something like that to someone with those kinds of attitudes?...

True, I maintained that my position was correct, but once I was corrected, I changed it. Isn't that proof that change is possible?🤔

rustywalker42 said:… Law is something that should be simple and accessible to everyone; laws should be written so they are understandable by all. Since Law, much like Politics, is so deeply woven into the fabric of every person's life, it seems almost ridiculous to even point that out...

Law has never been simple or universally accessible, nor will it ever be. There is an overwhelming number of regulations and complex legal scenarios; it's impossible to capture everything within a small set of perfectly clear, absolutely applicable rules. If it were that easy, we wouldn't even need a court system, because the rule would be crystal clear and leave no room for further questions.👍

feralranger said:It’s easier to comment on specific idiotic or unfair laws here, among people who know the legal jargon... though it would be highly desirable if they also possessed the capacity (or the courage) to actually use their brains and maintain some perspective—that is, to be able to see the 'big picture'...

Given how certain posters—and I’m looking directly at you—behave toward anyone who actually understands the legal nuances here, this discussion is essentially a non-starter. To be clear: if you want to debate Čačić, please take that to a more appropriate sub-forum (I assume there's already a dedicated thread over in Politics, for instance), rather than dragging him into every single comment under Law. If you aren't fully versed in the subject matter, it would be much more productive to respect the input of those who are, instead of simply trolling the thread.👍

Let me rephrase my question for you:

Would you actually be comfortable with someone owing you money, or having an intruder in your home, while the court refuses to issue an eviction order or the police simply decline to enforce it?😕

And I’ll throw one more in there for good measure:

How exactly are we supposed to decide which laws the police get to follow and which ones they can just ignore at their discretion?😕

silverviper3 said:I’m sorry, but that is just a total pile of nonsense because this forum exists specifically for people to write 🤷
Just let people talk! If someone starts rambling about stuff that’s totally off-topic, you can delete those specific posts or lock the thread if you really feel like it, but I honestly think it’s way too radical and frankly unprofessional to shut a whole topic down just to reopen it later. Once a thread is closed, it should stay closed—unless there's some really special reason, of course—and you’ve started making this a regular thing here lately, which is just frustrating! You have no idea how annoying it is to see a locked thread when you want to jump in and reply, only to find out it’s been reopened a few days later. It feels completely pointless, don't you think? 😕

To me, it looks like you're being indecisive by closing a thread just so you can figure out what to do next, but honestly, what’s the big deal if someone drops a couple of off-topic comments? Someone might report them, or even if they don't, those random posts will just get buried under a mountain of actual on-topic discussion anyway, and at the end of the day, you guys are right there to steer the conversation back on track if it ever truly wanders off

I’m not saying this just to you, either, but to all the mods, even though I haven't noticed anyone else doing this lately. Personally, I think you guys are some of the absolute best moderators on this entire politics forum! There are plenty of you, but you are truly experienced and incredibly reasonable, so if you're one of the newer mods, maybe try following the lead of the veteran ones to see how they handle things, because none of us know everything and we're all still learning as we go 🤷

As I mentioned before, I decided to lock the thread to save everyone the hassle of constant deletions and moderation cleanup. That said, I’ll admit you have a point—I could have left it open while handling the necessary housekeeping in parallel. I'll make sure to handle it that way next time.👍

P.S.: I didn't want to bother replying while you were still under suspension.👍

feralranger said:My points were entirely relevant to the subject at hand. Why does the presentation of facts seem to bother you so much? Furthermore, the film I referenced addresses exactly what happens to a society when the ideal of mindless obedience is glorified.

For instance, in Spain, there were instances where police officers decided they would simply refuse to carry out deportations— link.

In other words, even law enforcement officers (as well as legal professionals) are capable of exercising both intellect and empathy. The question remains: why do you all insist on celebrating such narrow-mindedness and blind compliance? It seems that on this forum—this space meant for actual debate there is significantly less room for critical thinking than there is in the minds of those Spanish police officers. Everything here appears subservient to the blind execution of the law.

Granted, that particular example is extreme, but it serves as a clear illustration of where a society ends up when it follows orders without a shred of thought. And I stated quite accurately that many of the enforcers in Nazi Germany utilized that exact same line of reasoning. That is, quite simply, a historical fact. If someone lacks such basic knowledge through their own general education, they could at least attempt to watch a serious film instead of drowning in soap operas, "Police Academy" comedies, and the various other pieces of trash people consume when they've collectively decided to stop using their brains.

Would you actually find it acceptable if someone owed you money, yet they simply refused to pay up? Or perhaps you’d be perfectly fine with a situation where a tenant refuses to vacate your property, the courts drag their feet on an eviction order, and then the local police refuse to actually enforce it? Honestly, I can't imagine anyone finding that kind of systemic failure remotely palatable.😕

hollowtrucker77 said:The forum regulars are becoming quite the distraction.

No, it’s really just a few outliers causing the friction.👍

Look, even on an online forum—regardless of how you feel about the community culture or the admins running the show—there are certain ground rules to follow. If there’s already a dedicated thread specifically for debating these kinds of topics, why go off and start the exact same argument elsewhere? It just ends up cluttering things up and distracting everyone who is actually trying to deal with a specific, practical issue.😕

hollowtrucker77 said:Brian Edwards6, this whole discussion regarding online minor pornography is a perfect example of you talking about something you clearly don't understand, all while trying to defend "the system"...

I am still waiting for you to point out exactly where I claimed expertise on something I didn't know, yet insisted upon it. If memory serves, I was merely outlining standard FBI investigative procedures and the literal wording of federal statutes, based strictly on what I’ve studied. I fail to see what was so egregious about that that it left such a lasting impression on you.🤔

hollowtrucker77 said:...and why shouldn't inappropriate symbols be cited?
Why shouldn't we discuss it? Why shouldn't the reasoning and the standards behind certain actions be explained?...

Because that isn't the purpose of this specific thread. It's a matter of organization. You have the Automotive subforum, for instance, which has a dedicated thread for "road geniuses" where people can post whatever they want, joke around, complain, or cause drama without confusion. I'm not disparaging the topic itself; I'm simply stating that everything needs its proper place.👍

hollowtrucker77 said:Look, it’s entirely possible that Brian Edwards6 is just misinformed or flat-out clueless about certain details. But there's a difference between being mistaken and acting like he’s some high-ranking spokesperson for the police department or the entire federal bureaucracy. It feels less like he's sharing facts and more like he’s desperately trying to protect the reputation of the system.

Look, I’m not out here trying to defend the reputation of the police or the legal system. I’m just asking you to point out exactly where I provided incorrect information, doubled down on a falsehood, or insisted on something I clearly have no clue about.😕

hollowtrucker77 said:... though, at most, providing a Q&A service might serve as a secondary purpose for him.

Let's go take a look at the last few posts; it’s quite telling how many of them are just endless questions versus how many actually invite a real, substantive discussion.👍

ZgSash As specified by Brian Edwards6:
...that being said, why shouldn't we actually sit down and debate whether that speed limit sign even makes sense? I mean, if we're looking at this specific stretch of road where most drivers are already cruising comfortably at 45 mph without any issues, one has to wonder about the logic behind it.

The problem here is that most people don't actually have a clue about the specific sign at this particular location. Instead, they pivot to listing a mountain of other examples where they feel signs are misplaced—not to mention the fact that it’s perfectly reasonable to ask who holds the authority for signage placement and what the official process is for requesting changes. Because of this, a thread intended for concrete answers quickly spirals into several pages of aimless rambling about everything under the sun. Regarding "Criminal and Traffic Law," we aren't deleting these types of discussions anymore. Instead, they are being moved to the "traffic rule - various questions" thread, which has essentially become the catch-all category for these inquiries. Just a reminder: if a post isn't actually a legal question, it will be deleted.👍

Quite the opposite, actually. I’m certain of it. My intention in closing the thread was simply to save everyone some time, reduce the clutter, and stop the endless scrolling through redundant posts. Most of those who were interested—and subsequently removed—aren't actually looking to dive into the legal intricacies of this situation anyway. They just want to vent their frustrations regarding the government, federal agencies, or the various parties involved. While that need to blow off steam is perfectly valid and understandable, this particular forum isn't the place for it.👍

bluecyclist64 said:And where exactly did Brian Edwards6 disappear to? Was it just following orders from on high?

I honestly wonder what it would take for you to move this thread over to the Politics section. It would allow us to actually discuss people without having to deal with this constant legalistic and police-style censorship. I suspect the moderators over there wouldn't have any issue letting a topic like this slide.

EDIT: I see that... 👍Thirteen has returned to the fold, but my proposal regarding the reallocation still stands.

Out on the street.😉

bluecyclist64 said:And where exactly did Brian Edwards6 disappear to? Was it just following orders from on high?

I honestly wonder what it would take for you to move this thread over to the Politics section. It would allow us to actually discuss people without having to deal with this constant legalistic and police-style censorship. I suspect the moderators over there wouldn't have any issue letting a topic like this slide.

EDIT: I see that... 👍Thirteen has returned to the fold, but my proposal regarding the reallocation still stands.

To echo what our colleague from the Politics board suggested: if anyone feels the urge for a more open debate, feel free to start a new thread in that subforum. It’s not an issue that the topic is currently sitting under Law; the real issue is that discussions in the Politics section are supposed to focus on the legal aspects of the matter, which hasn't exactly been the case here. A few comments have been scrubbed and the thread will remain open, but I should warn you—off-topic rambling and similar diversions will be deleted.👍

crimsonsailor7 said:That’s exactly how it is... 👍 Man, I swear we actually had something like RL back in the day, whether people want to believe it or not...

Maybe you do.🙂

I won't drag this out any longer; the thread is now open for legal inquiries. As for why it was shut down in the first place, it largely comes down to specific segments of your previous comments, such as:

... It was exactly those kinds of "arguments" used by people who served Germany during the Nazi era...

Yes, that particular snippet is just a fraction of your comment, and I'll admit it was taken out of context. However, posts like that are precisely what we try to prevent in threads like this. This is the Law sub-forum, yet the discussion keeps veering off into politics, history, and whatnot. There was a warning posted on the thread, so I’m going to ask you personally to please stick to the rules.👍

rustywalker42 As specified by:
I didn't say that debating you was pointless; rather, I posed the question, "is there any point in debating you?" That inquiry was merely one small part of a much broader context...

So, you were just trolling me?😕

rustywalker42 As requested:
... No, you still haven't given me an answer...

I did. You asked what the police are actually permitted to do in a situation like that, and I gave you my answer. Then you followed up by asking if there was even any point in trying to argue with me, so I decided to stop attempting to clarify my position.👍

rustywalker42 As I have previously noted:
You’re still dodging the question, which pretty much leads us to the inevitable conclusion: you don't actually have any legal standing to back up those claims of yours.

I am certainly not avoiding the issue; my actions are entirely consistent with current regulations. I have already laid out my reasoning, and frankly, I have no intention of elaborating further.👍

rustywalker42 said:Look, if I manage to produce actual evidence from an official authority that proves you wrong, would you be willing to step down from your moderator position?

Provided we can actually reach an agreement on what constitutes valid evidence, then of course.👍

rustywalker42 said:So, you’re actually going to sit there and tell me I’m wrong? Fine. Let me make this very simple: I am right. If we’re really going to descend to this level of discourse, though, shall we just skip the pleasantries and move straight to seeing whose dad is tougher?

No, I don't think so. Since my position on this is pretty clear, there’s really no point in me cluttering up a thread where you clearly intend to debate the administrators. I suppose I'll just honor what I promised in my first comment—that's all from me.👍

rustywalker42 said:… That’s an invitation to debate…

Even with the best intentions, I fail to see how your comment constitutes an invitation to discuss anything, particularly when you follow it up by claiming a debate with me is pointless.🤷

rustywalker42 said:… yet you didn't actually answer my question…

I did answer. If you found the tone or the nature of my response unsatisfying, that is certainly an issue, but I have already explained why addressing it in that specific way would be futile.👍

rustywalker42 said:… If you had just cited the exact law and regulation, you'd never be finished…

I have already laid out the reasons why I chose not to respond in that manner.👍

rustywalker42 said:… If I were presented with written evidence from official authorities proving you are wrong, would you be willing to step down from your moderator position?...

If the administration decides I need to "step down," I am prepared to do so immediately. As for how the police handle such matters: if I were actually in the wrong, I wouldn't just lose my job; I’d be facing jail time and a lifetime of paying damages for emotional distress—much like several of my colleagues who found themselves in similar situations.👍

rustywalker42 said:… You know who ended up being right all along? Me.

That doesn't mean I'm suddenly infallible in every debate we have. In this particular instance, you're still nowhere near the mark.👍

rustywalker42 As I was saying:
Look, my question is perfectly valid. The issue is that they haven't backed up a single one of their arguments with actual law or official regulation... anywhere.
So, why wasn't it considered sensible? Is it because it requires a slightly deeper dive into legal expertise, and that’s just not quite your speed?
The problem here is that you lot seem to think trolling is the only appropriate response whenever someone asks a question that requires even a modicum of legal expertise.
The truth of the matter is that you’re just getting defensive because you don't actually have an answer to my question.
Look, like I mentioned before, the Law subforum is essentially a mirror reflecting the state of our judicial system and how we train lawyers here in America. It’s a process where critical thinking is completely sidelined in favor of rote memorization. Students spend their entire lives cramming hundreds of pages of textbooks word-for-word just to pass an exam. But the moment you take those same students—the ones who graduated with honors and top marks—and present them with a real-world practical scenario, they completely fall apart. They have no idea what to do when there isn't a textbook answer staring them in the face.
I honestly can't fathom why my comment was interpreted as trolling. I explicitly stated that I wasn't trying to be provocative; I am genuinely interested in understanding the situation.
So, please, feel free to go ahead and cite the specific statute or regulation that supposedly grants you the authority you’ve decided to claim in that thread. I'm all ears.

Rather than addressing every single point individually, I think a collective response will suffice here. Honestly, I don't mind repeating myself a hundred times over—you can scroll back through the threads and see that this is a recurring theme—but only if I believe the person actually wants an answer. I have zero interest in engaging if the goal isn't clarity, but rather just dragging things out for the sake of arguing (or "scientific debate," as you so eloquently put it). You pose a question, and then the moment I provide an answer, you dismiss it as merely my "opinion." Then, when I follow up by asking what you think should be done—which is how a functional discussion actually works—you turn around and question whether there's even any point in debating me at all. To me, that doesn't feel like an invitation to a dialogue; it feels like a provocation designed to trigger a petty back-and-forth. I have no intention of participating in that kind of sparring, nor am I going to sit by while you disrupt the flow of this thread with that sort of behavior.👍

rustywalker42 said:...and his response to the situation would be nothing short of pure aggression.

In a specific scenario, we aren't talking about aggression here—we're discussing the lawful and justifiable use of force.👍

rustywalker42 said:Let’s be clear: if you were to put me in that exact situation, I would sue you so relentlessly that you’d be paying out emotional distress damages for the rest of your natural life.

That’s exactly what I was getting at—you might end up leading someone down a dangerous path, and if they actually take your advice, you're the one who'll be left dealing with the fallout. If you’re so convinced that this is how things work, then by all means, feel free to test that theory yourself and see just how well it goes for you. Just don't expect anyone to bail you out when things go south. Believe me, nobody is going to cut you a check to fix your mess. I'm not just talking out of turn here; I'm speaking from both personal experience and my professional background. And look, if you’re genuinely interested in the legalities of it all, I wouldn't mind backing my position up with specific statutory language.👍

rustywalker42 said:… The suggestions are quite specific, starting with removing you and crimsonsailor7 as moderators…
Here is a very specific suggestion for you: step down from your moderator position. Both you and crimsonsailor7 should consider it...

If the administration feels my resignation is necessary, I have absolutely no issue with that.👍

Similarly, if the administration thinks we ought to launch a new sub-forum, I’m perfectly fine with that too.👍

rustywalker42 said:... For which I’ve been handed a red card and slapped with 35 troll points...

So, the pattern is simple: you ask a question, people rush in to answer, and then you turn around and mock both the answers and the people giving them. You were originally flagged for your overall contribution to the thread, but today, that penalty is specifically targeted at this one comment.👍

rustywalker42 said:I’ve been thinking about the curriculum at our College of Natural Sciences, and I can't help but feel we're drifting. Personally, I think we should strictly limit enrollment to those pursuing actual natural science degrees. It feels like the integrity of the department suffers when the requirements become too diluted.
Are we planning to roll this out on Car and Driver as well?

Every subforum here has a specific purpose and a general direction, and I’d appreciate it if we all respected that. If you decide to post in a thread like "Police Conduct," then actually engage with the subject matter. Either accept how officers handle a situation or offer some legitimate criticism or opinion. Don't just show up to mock everything. You asked quite nicely what you would personally change about a specific procedure, and honestly, you already know exactly how you answered that.👍

rustywalker42 As I was saying:
Law is arguably the last subforum where creative debate should be stifled, primarily because the law itself is the most fluid entity we deal with. There aren't really any permanent dogmas here; instead, what people call "dogma" is simply whatever remains in effect for as long as a specific statute stands. If and when that law is overturned or repealed, that supposed dogma ceases to exist entirely.

To clarify how this works: if you ask about the lifespan of a certain "dogma," my answer will align perfectly with whatever that current dogma happens to be. When the dogma shifts, so does the response. Given the inherent nature of a subforum like this, "unsolicited advice" threads rarely go well. If someone is looking for actual information, they’ll usually find it here, but following the "just trust me, bro" logic found in these debates could easily lead you down the wrong path—potentially resulting in some very real-world, very heavy consequences. If you're ever unsure about a specific legal procedure, try ignoring the officer during a traffic stop next time; you'll figure out exactly where you stand pretty quickly.👍

rustywalker42 said:… Therefore, I am proposing a restructuring of the Legal subforum. I have two specific suggestions in mind...

These proposals feel a bit too vague for my liking.👍

rustywalker42 said:… I don’t intend to get into a debate with the moderators of the Legal subforum. It seems pointless, given that they believe everything is functioning perfectly as it is...

As crimsonsailor7 pointed out, nothing is ever truly perfect, and there is always room for improvement. I would be more than happy to consider any suggestions that are actually concrete and useful.👍

P.S.: Since you seem to be waiting on a response from administration, I'll leave it at that. If any substantive or practical conclusions emerge, I will gladly assist in implementing them.👍

The BNC is strictly reserved for those who are currently serving a ban.👍

... a bunch of Black people and everyone else...

Is the race element actually a major factor here, or what?🤔