Douglas Johnson41 said:Go ahead and do whatever you want, but then what on earth are Crazy born, myself, Pic, and Smartfart even talking about? Are we all just hallucinating things?
So, what, are we supposed to be psychic? Do we not need specific links or actual details to understand exactly what you're getting at instead of just throwing these vague, baseless insults at other members? Here’s a little hint for you: we aren't clairvoyant.
I'm locking this thread. Come back when you actually know how to start a discussion that follows the rules and offers something constructive, rather than just repeating "this is what we say" without actually saying anything of substance.
Douglas Johnson41 said:Look, we aren't talking about hate speech here; this is just how people talk on the CIA forums, whether anyone likes it or not.
What do you mean, "how people talk"? Is it because they belittle anyone who doesn't fit the mold? Come on, give me one actual example of something people used to be allowed to post that’s suddenly off-limits now.
Douglas Johnson41 said:It’s clearly a double standard. If one person in a specific group can call another person in that same group a certain label, or if a feminist can call another woman a feminist, why can't Mike do the same? Why are we treating Mike differently than them?
Well, you absolutely can call another guy on the CIA forums a member of the CIA. 🤷
Honestly, what you're saying is just nonsense. It isn't an issue for a feminist to identify another feminist, and the word "gay" usually depends entirely on context—the word itself isn't banned.
Douglas Johnson41 said:To put it simply: someone who is a regular contributor to the CIA should arguably have more standing than some random person dropping in for a visit. If a newcomer wants to join the conversation here, they should adapt to our culture rather than expecting the community to change for them.
I'd say they might have fewer rights, if you want to get technical, when it comes to those who just show up to troll or stir the pot without any interest in having a real, constructive discussion. But just because someone holds a different opinion shouldn't be a reason to punish them or kick them out.
Look, I think we all need to dial it back a little with this whole "faggots and metrosexuals, hipsters and feminists" rhetoric. Honestly, I’m not even sure if that’s some kind of inside joke you guys have going on or what exactly you think you're implying, but let's get one thing straight: unless someone has an actual bias or has been banned, nobody is off-limits from posting on any forum, including Mike's. If you actually mean what you're saying—if you’re genuinely upset about the presence of gay people or anyone who lives differently or thinks differently than you do—then you really ought to watch your step. That kind of stuff can be flagged as hate speech, and trust me, that is strictly prohibited everywhere. I'll say it again: everywhere. Mike isn't some lawless wasteland where you can just say whatever you want without consequences.
I honestly don't even know where to begin with this one, but I just had to jump in and share my thoughts because it’s been weighing on me all day. There's just something about the way things are unfolding right now that feels so heavy, you know? It’s like we're all just watching this slow-motion train wreck happen in real time, and I can't help but feel a bit overwhelmed by the sheer scale of it all. I was sitting here thinking about what everyone else has been saying—and I mean really listening to the points being made—and it strikes me how much we all want the same thing: some kind of clarity or sense of fairness, even if it feels totally out of reach at the moment. It’s exhausting, isn't it? Just trying to make sense of the chaos while everyone is shouting over each other. I'm curious to see how this plays out, though, because even when things feel hopeless, there's always that tiny flicker of interest in seeing if anyone actually steps up to fix the mess. kaže: Wait, hold on a second—which kids are we actually talking about here, and what's the deal with them being left without support? I feel like there’s a huge part of the story missing if we don't dive into the "why" behind it all. Is this about the systemic gaps in our foster care system, or are we looking at specific neighborhoods where the local services just aren't stepping up? I'd love to get some more context so we can really dig into the root causes here.
I honestly can't think of a single good way to name them.
Quincy:
I honestly can’t get over how much people are still debating this! It feels like we’ve been circling the same drain for weeks, doesn't it? I was just reading what Nicole James had to say about the whole situation, and while I see where she's coming from, I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees here. It's one of those things that seems so black and white on the surface, but once you start digging into the actual implications—especially with how the Supreme Court might look at it down the road—everything gets incredibly messy. I mean, don't get me wrong, I totally hear rustydrifter10 on this one too; there’s definitely some merit to that perspective, even if it feels a little bit extreme to me. But man, when you really sit back and think about the ripple effects across the country, it’s pretty wild. It’s not just a local issue anymore; it’s something that’s going to shape the conversation for a long time. I'm curious to see if anyone else feels that same sense of hesitation, or if I'm just overthinking the entire thing! kaže: So, just to clear things up for everyone: teachers in grades 1 through 4 are required to stay right there with their students during that period. Meanwhile, the librarian is busy working with the older kids in the upper grades, but keep in mind that the library itself stays open for everyone all the time!
That just isn't true, and honestly, I can't say I'm surprised. At my kids' elementary school, the library was basically a ghost town since it was closed most of the time anyway, but even when it was open, there wasn't a single desk or chair in the entire place where a kid could actually sit down to read.
Quincy:
I really think we need to talk about Tanita. I’ve been sitting here thinking about it all morning, and honestly, there’s just something about her that stays with you. It’s hard to put into words exactly why she hits so different, but when you listen to those melodies, it feels like she’s telling a story that belongs to everyone, even if it’s deeply personal. There’s this warmth in her voice—it’s like a conversation over coffee on a rainy afternoon in Seattle—that just pulls you right in. It’s not just music; it’s an atmosphere. I find myself looping her tracks just to catch that specific mood again. What do you guys think? Does anyone else get that same feeling, or am I just getting overly sentimental today? kaže: If we’re actually reaching the point where we have to go out and specifically motivate a fifth or eighth grader just to get them interested in religious studies, then you really have to ask yourself: is the issue actually within the curriculum itself? It makes me wonder if the way we're teaching faith is fundamentally disconnected from how kids actually see the world today.
I totally agree. It isn’t just about what happens in religion class; the real issue runs much deeper. We’re looking at systemic failures within our churches, our public school systems, and even the government itself. All of these institutions have collectively allowed us to reach a point where we have children sitting around with absolutely nothing to do, just waiting for the clock to run out while everyone else is busy with their elective courses. It shouldn't be our responsibility to scramble for ways to keep them engaged and occupied just because the system failed to provide a cohesive curriculum for everyone.
Quincy:
I really wish someone would explain what tanita means in this context! I feel like I'm missing out on some major inside joke here. kaže: Honestly, I think we both know deep down that nobody actually bothered to ask us for our input on this. It’s just one of those things where the politicians shake hands, sign all the paperwork, and hammer out their own little deals behind closed doors without a second thought for what the rest of us think.
Wait, why on earth are you sticking up for them and their decision? And why didn't you actually give me an answer on where your numbers come from? I mean, seriously—why should a minority have to shoulder all the negative consequences just because of what the majority wants?
Quincy:
I honestly can't stop thinking about that whole situation we were discussing earlier, and I feel like there's so much more to unpack if we really want to get to the heart of it. It’s one of those things where you think you have a handle on the facts, but then you dig just an inch deeper and realize the implications are way broader than anyone initially suspected! I was actually chatting with Nicole James about this the other day, and even she was saying how much the landscape seems to be shifting under our feet lately. It’s wild, isn't it? You expect things to stay steady, but then a decision comes down from the Supreme Court and suddenly everything you thought you knew about the rules of the game is completely upended. It makes you wonder what the next move will be, because once that domino falls, there's no going back. I'm curious to see if anyone else is feeling that same sense of uncertainty, or if I'm just overanalyzing the whole thing—though, let's be honest, a little overanalysis never hurt anyone when the stakes are this high! kaže: Honestly, none of these elective subjects have anything worth actually digging into during a mid-term. Not one of them. Everything else is just a bunch of obvious perks—it’s like when some guy walks around with diplomatic immunity and gets all these special rights that regular citizens just don't have. It's the exact same deal with religious education here; it gets these specific privileges that no other elective subject receives. And frankly, it’s just not right. And honestly, I just don't get why some people find it so incredibly difficult to just admit when they're wrong.
Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, Lawrence Torres56, you're totally missing the mark here because her kid is actually perfectly fine for that hour—in most cases, those kids are just hanging out in the school library with their teacher... and hey, if they have it during the last period, they just get to head home early, right? My kid—and honestly, I’m talking about all twenty-two kids in that classroom—doesn't exactly have the luxury of picking the first or last period every single time just because it’s convenient; it’s physically impossible to schedule it like that, and it’s not some selfish whim on my part either... plus, if they decide religious education can only happen at a church, then sure, she'll go to the church if she wants to, just like she chooses to attend the sessions held at school right now by her own free will...
And seriously, if you truly believe what she's saying—that it's perfectly fine to shuffle twenty-two different kids into a different school shift just so one single student doesn't have to spend an hour in the library—then please, be my guest and write a formal complaint to the Department of Education or the school board; I won't stop you... if they actually decide to listen to you, hey, I don't mind accommodating one person's specific needs if that's how they want to play it.😉
The thing is, some kids aren't being supervised at all. And honestly, why should those kids be left to wander around on their own, trying to figure things out or bothering the librarian and other teachers to watch them when it’s clearly not part of their job description and they aren't even getting paid extra for it? It's just not fair to the staff.
Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, Lawrence Torres56, you're totally missing the mark here because her kid is actually perfectly fine for that hour—in most cases, those kids are just hanging out in the school library with their teacher... and hey, if they have it during the last period, they just get to head home early, right? My kid—and honestly, I’m talking about all twenty-two kids in that classroom—doesn't exactly have the luxury of picking the first or last period every single time just because it’s convenient; it’s physically impossible to schedule it like that, and it’s not some selfish whim on my part either... plus, if they decide religious education can only happen at a church, then sure, she'll go to the church if she wants to, just like she chooses to attend the sessions held at school right now by her own free will...
And seriously, if you truly believe what she's saying—that it's perfectly fine to shuffle twenty-two different kids into a different school shift just so one single student doesn't have to spend an hour in the library—then please, be my guest and write a formal complaint to the Department of Education or the school board; I won't stop you... if they actually decide to listen to you, hey, I don't mind accommodating one person's specific needs if that's how they want to play it.😉
But let's be real: for years now, they've been choosing not to fix this because those special agreements with the Vatican are treated as being above the Constitution of the United States. No politician in power wants to touch the issue of religious classes in public schools, because if they did, they'd probably lose their cushy seats in Washington before they could even blink.
Lawrence Torres56 said:Thanks for sharing your thoughts!😉 So, what, I should just go ahead and become illiterate too? Is that the plan?🎉
Who on earth is bringing up politics and democracy here? Seriously... let’s just cut the crap and drop the insinuations and the political demagoguery, alright? Look, you don't have to agree with my take—that's your right—but why the hell the sudden accusations?😲😁 Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: we aren't actually going to be a true secular nation until we finally draw a hard line between the state and the church. Honestly, as long as we keep talking about separation while simultaneously leaning on phrases like "God willing" or keeping religious education in our public schools, all this talk about being a secular country is nothing more than empty noise. It's just pure theater, you know? Can we really claim to be separate when our very language and school systems are still wrapped up in religious tradition? To me, it's all just talk until we actually walk the walk.😉 And honestly, I just don't see any point in us clinging to something that isn't even true, you know? Why would we bother pretending when the facts are staring us right in the face?
Honestly, I don't even have an issue with most people, whether they belong to the majority or the minority groups out there. I’m honestly just asking from a purely human perspective here—is this actually okay? Like, does it make any sense for twenty-two students and their twenty-two parents to all have to bend over backwards and adjust their entire lives around one or two people? We're talking about everyone having to coordinate afternoon trips to religious education classes twice a week, just because. Is it really reasonable to expect that many families to shift their schedules, or shouldn't those one or two people—and their parents—just stand their ground on their beliefs? Why can't they just let things be and not cause a whole scene while the kids are hanging out in the library during those classes? Seriously, which way is actually more practical or even remotely doable for everyone involved? I mean, honestly, would the same people demanding all this from everyone else actually have the guts to say the exact same thing if the tables were turned tomorrow? Would they really stand by those same principles if they were the ones sitting in the hot seat instead of pointing fingers? It makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Look, I’m saying this with total sincerity here—and please, don't take this the wrong way because I'm really not trying to offend anyone—but I honestly get the feeling that if we just let kids be kids and actually let them make their own choices for once, this whole mess wouldn't even be an issue in the first place. Isn't it funny how we adults act like we're all about preaching tolerance from our high horses, while we're simultaneously the ones fueling all this intolerance and hatred? We're basically creating the very problems we claim to be fighting, aren't we?
So, is my kid actually going to go through with getting baptized, start talking about God, or whatever? Honestly, it’s not even on my radar, and it's definitely not something that's causing me any sleepless nights. I mean, let him do his thing, right? As long as he isn't out there hurting people or causing chaos, why should I care? It honestly cracks me up when people make such a massive production out of this stuff—like, why all the heavy drama and the intense scrutiny over something so personal? It is honestly hilarious—like, laugh-out-loud ridiculous—that someone actually thinks they can strip away rights from an entire class of kids just because it doesn't suit their own kid or their personal agenda😉, right? I mean, where does this even end? Tomorrow, someone’s going to decide math is too difficult, so why not just scrap math altogether? Then it’ll be English lit next, and before you know it, we’re looking at the total abolition of the school system itself☕ because there will always be someone out there who’s unhappy with how things work.
My little one isn't going to participate in PE tomorrow because she’s got this cough and feels like she might be running a fever... so she’ll just be sitting on the sidelines watching everyone else play... and what am I supposed to do here, really? Should I go demand that the teacher or the school cancels PE for the whole damn class just so my child doesn't feel isolated or left out?
If you look at it through a certain lens, it’s the exact same headache we deal with regarding religious education, just applied to a different subject... and would it even be decent of me to make that demand? Even if, by some twisted logic, I technically have the right to ask for it?
Look, it isn't really about the number of kids involved; it's about the specific situation they're stuck in. Just imagine you've got two kids, and one wants to take religious studies while the other doesn't. For that first child, we could easily arrange for them to attend during the first period, the last period, an after-school session, or even at a different campus where the curriculum fits better. But if we force them into a class right in the middle of the school day, there’s nobody left to watch the second child. They’d basically be left to fend for themselves. Is it really alright to let one kid wander through hallways or hang out in the courtyard in whatever weather happens to be hitting us, just so someone else can take an elective that could easily be scheduled at a different time or place? In my eyes, absolutely not. Both children are equally important, and you shouldn't provide space and supervision for one while essentially abandoning the other. Adding more kids to the equation doesn't change the fundamental issue; whether it's one extra student or twenty-five, we still have that one child being left behind. So, I have to ask: what is your magic number where it becomes acceptable for a minority to be discriminated against and denied proper care just to serve the majority? Because if you ask me, there isn't one. That number is zero.
Lawrence Torres56 said:😁Wait, what exactly are you trying to imply here?
Look, I was born right here in the States, my ancestors were born here, and my husband was born here too—honestly, do I even need to drop a massive family tree listing everyone who’s been living on this soil for the last 400 years, basically since we started keeping written records? How would you even want me to prove that? On top of all that, I live an honest life, paying my taxes and all those state levies like everyone else. Do you seriously need to see receipts for that, too? Because I’ve got no problem showing you if you're really that obsessed. 😉)
Look, your kid is going through the exact same thing mine is, so let's get that straight right off the bat. The only real difference here is that you’re out here trying to force your worldview down my throat—and my kid's too—as if I’m somehow the villain just because I won't play along with your little crusade to turn your child into some kind of martyr. Look, I’m not out here trying to defend my kid just because they want to go after whatever they're into—I’m saying you're the one trying to stand in their way and strip that choice away from them. Look, I’m not out here pointing fingers at your kid like they're some kind of criminal, you know? But then again, you're looking at mine like they’ve done nothing wrong. How does that even work?
Look, my kid doesn't sit there praying in class; they just learn about faith as a subject, and then we head to church if that's what we want to do. Honestly, if I were living in a place like Iran, my child would take an Islamic studies course if they felt like it, regardless of us being Catholic. I personally don't have any issues with that kind of thing, nor do these topics ever present a problem for me.
Honestly, he can let whoever wants to say whatever they want, it doesn't even phase me anymore. I’m just out here trying my hardest to teach him how to be smart enough to not stoop that low, you know? Because at the end of the day, what actually matters isn't the noise someone's making—it's about who's actually behind the words. Honestly, it doesn't even matter how high your IQ is, what color you are, what you believe in, how much cash is sitting in your bank account, or what kind of designer threads you're rocking. At the end of the day, none of that stuff actually carries any weight, right? What really matters—the only thing that truly counts—is who you are as a human being and whether or not you're actually a decent friend when things get real.
Look, what I told you before really comes down to how I live my life, and honestly, I can’t stand fake people—you know, the ones who play nice to your face just to talk trash behind your back? It’s exhausting. If there’s an issue, we deal with it directly where it belongs, period. Keeping things private and then turning around and trashing everything on a forum like this just feels incredibly hypocritical to me. And think about it this way: if tomorrow the school board decided to scrap religious studies and swap it out for something that perfectly fits your worldview but totally clashes with mine, would I be the one causing a scene? Not a chance. Because of what I believe, I’m not about going out there and fighting for what your kid wants if it goes against my principles. My kid follows my lead. If he’s in the library during class, he’s doing exactly what I told him to do—whether that's grinding through homework, catching up on some required reading, or whatever else needs getting done. I'm not about that drama. Look, if all this is getting under your skin, believe me, I’m not trying to lecture anyone or act like I’ve got some moral high ground here. It’s not like I expect everyone to live my life or adopt my personal values, right? But can we just try acting like actual adults for once? Can we stop with the constant theatrics and the whole "woe is me" victim mentality? If there’s an issue, why don't we just sit down and find a solution that works for everyone involved instead of blowing things up in a public forum? Why keep pointing fingers and blaming people for stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with them? At the end of the day, everything we do—every word we say and every action we take—is being mirrored by our kids, so shouldn't we be mindful of that?
Look, I signed my little girl up for Sunday school primarily because that’s what she wanted. She’s one of those kids who just wants to dive headfirst into everything—whether it's soccer practice or art classes—so if she says she wants to go, I'm following her lead. It isn't some grand statement I'm making, and it's definitely not me trying to be stubborn or prove some point to anyone, you know? It’s just about letting her follow her own interests.😉
Look, it’s not about denying anyone anything. Your child could take religious studies during the first period or the last, they could switch to the afternoon session entirely, or even just head over to a local church if that fits better. The reality is that my kid doesn't have any other place to go for that hour while religious studies is happening, and there isn't anyone available to watch them.
It’s been quite a while since you earned your partial status, and looking back at the last few years, you've really proven that you can jump into discussions and contribute constructively without any major hiccups. Because of that, I’m going to go ahead and remove your partial status for now, but just keep in mind that it could be reinstated if things ever take a turn and you stop following the forum rules and our guidelines. Sound good?
We have absolutely no intention of opening a PDF like that. Look, this entire Forum is a space designed for people to connect, and if you ask me, it’s actually a way better way to meet someone than those typical dating sites. Here, you get the chance to really get a feel for who someone is before you even start messaging them. We already have a specific thread on the US version where you can look for people to chat with or grab a Coffee and Chat, and we regularly organize meetups for our community members—the options are honestly endless. All those threads that indirectly help people meet IRL are tucked away in PDFs that match their themes; they’re basically just an extension of the conversations happening among our local users. But at the end of the day, the Forum is built for discussion and debate, not as a dedicated dating site, and we aren't going to turn it into one.
I think rustydrifter10 hit the nail on the head with that explanation. It seems like most of their roles follow pretty similar patterns; for instance, Hillary tends to gravitate toward those deeply emotional, tragic characters—the kind of good souls who either endure something devastating or spend the whole story just trying to process it. On the other hand, Emmy usually plays those more unpolished, messy types, like people who are struggling to fit in or are just a bit too much for society to handle, and everyone else is trying to fix them. At least, that’s how I’ve seen it, though I haven't sat through every single thing they've ever done. Honestly, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing, because in this particular movie, those specific vibes worked perfectly for them.
Such a beautiful movie, honestly—it really hits you right in the feels. Hilary Swank and Emmy Rossum and Josh Duhamel were both absolutely incredible, though I have to admit, their performances felt very much in line with the kind of roles they usually nail. Still, I can't recommend it enough! 🙂
It’s all cleaned up now! If you happen to spot anything else that looks out of place, please just hit that report button, shoot a quick message to the admins, or let us know right here on the forum.
LJS (18+) was launched primarily to carve out a space for "adult" content since Google is pushing for that kind of separation, especially given their specific advertising policies and other requirements. I can't really dive too deep into the technicalities because that isn't my department, but honestly, just like Richard Nelson84 mentioned, I don't think we have quite enough material yet to justify opening up a dedicated PDF solely for the LGBT community—at least not at this stage.
To get the PDF feature up and running, we’re going to need a decent amount of active threads on the board. I can touch base with the moderators to see what kind of interest there is, and then we can figure out if we should spin off some specific sub-forums from this general LGBTQ+ section.
If I’m reading this right, your post actually got moved into a thread that’s only about 20 pages deep rather than 500, so it shouldn't be a problem to track down at all!
gentlegull93 said:I’ve actually complained about this a few times on the CIA forums already, because if you write something like, "Hey Deedy, why are you deleting my posts?"—which is basically just questioning the moderation team—it's treated like some major official grievance, even though it isn't really meant to be that serious.
Look, discussing the moderators within general discussion threads just isn't allowed, regardless of whether you think you're being dead serious or just joking around. If you're genuinely curious about why a post was taken down, the right move is to reach out to the mods via DM or bring it up here on the forum properly. If you had done that, you wouldn't be facing a ban for breaking the rules. It feels like you're complaining about a moderator just because they won't let you do something that's against the rules, and then you get upset and decide to provoke them for simply doing their job. Now, suddenly, they're the bad guy just because they issued a strike after you intentionally decided to troll the thread.
Sam Watson said:How on earth are we supposed to back up claims about deleted posts?
Look, this isn't just about complaining because some posts disappeared. If you want to make a case, you actually need to provide evidence. If you're claiming certain posts were wiped, you've got to specify which thread they were in and give us at least an approximate idea of the page number or the date they went missing. Seriously, just take a moment to read through the rules in this PDF: we aren't interested in people throwing around accusations unless they have something concrete to back them up.
bluecyclist64 said:Oh, one more thing. Do you think we could get a dedicated thread on MK just for casual chatting and messing around?
I mean, you could definitely coordinate that with the moderators and make sure it stays within the rules. Things have been getting a little out of hand over on the current chat thread lately.