Posts by coastalbison6

Chris Chase5 said:If something like this happened in the States—counting all those votes, having 10% of the electorate using mail-in ballots (which can't be tampered with)—critics of our political system would be calling us the laughingstock of the world, or worse, using much harsher labels to describe our chaos...

Over here, it’s actually seen as a celebration of democracy. Honestly, I don't get the argument that people who travel frequently shouldn't be allowed to vote just because they happen to be spending their weekend in their favorite city, like Chicago or New York. It's just nonsense.

And yet, looking back at 2018, we ended up with Hofer in power :-) which is going to be absolute hell... for everyone, not just his supporters...

And where exactly does it say that you and your crowd are required to understand that? 😁

hiddengardener12 said:Let me restate my argument against the whole "urban vs. rural" simplification. I'll lay it out clearly this time so it's obvious I'm just doubling down on my previous point. And look, I'm not disputing any other statistics here.

It seems like nobody is looking at the regional patterns in this vote beyond the basic urban-rural divide. And keeping in mind that Vienna is its own beast entirely: it's really more about the West/Northwest versus the South/Southeast.

Look at the states: in Vorarlberg, Alexander Van der Bellen pulls a convincing win with over 56%. And that is a deeply rural area.

In Tyrol and Upper Austria, Hofer and VdB are basically neck and neck. There, Alexander Van der Bellen actually won the majority in several rural spots—take Bad Ischl and Gmunden in the Salzkammergut region, for example. He even took historic Hallstatt with 70%.

But Burgenland, Styria, and Carinthia are a completely different story. In those states, Hofer wins by over 60%. He’s even picking up some urban centers there. In Styria, he wins almost everywhere except Graz. In Burgenland, he takes everything, including Eisenstadt. Over in Carinthia, VdB barely scrapes by in Klagenfurt (50.4% to 49.6%). In Villach, for instance, Hofer wins handily.

That's the reality. I just don't care for oversimplifications.

I know just about every little town in Austria, but the Mühlviertel feels like a total black hole to me. That's why I figured I'd weigh in on this.
Tyrol might be mostly rural, but their economy is surprisingly powerhouse. They’ve got some serious heavy hitters that lead their industries globally—think companies like Caterpillar, John Deere, or even Red Bull. It's pretty impressive.
Vorarlberg only has about 400,000 people now, though back in the 70s, they were sitting at around 180,000.
The whole Rhine Valley area, stretching from Bregenz to Feldkirch, covers about... 37 milesIt’s basically just one big industrial zone masquerading as a city.
While everyone else thinks Austrians are just Bavarians, they’re actually more like Germans—closely tied to the Swiss and speaking that same Swiss dialect. Back in 1919, there was even a referendum where 80% voted to join Switzerland, but the French cantons shot it down.

In Tyrol, just like everywhere else in western Austria, you've got this strong mix of Greens and conservatives, with plenty of active Catholics in the mix too. Plus, since VdB is from Tyrol himself, it’s pretty obvious how he managed to sweep the republic.
Upper Austria is actually pretty unique. About a third of all the priests and nuns in the country come from the Innviertel region. 😁 The industrial corridor between Pittsburgh and Cleveland is basically the heavy-duty heart of the country, while everything else out in the sticks is pretty much empty.
Most people from the old country who moved to Germany ended up settling right around the Enns-Wels-Gmunden area and Hausruck. You still run into plenty of older German folks there who act like they can be understood by everyone in the world. 😁

I spent almost the entire day out working in the garden, so I was greeted with some pretty great news this evening 👍
The big takeaway for the United States of America is that there’s finally a real alternative on the "left side" now. It means moving forward, protesters don't all have to flock to the Republican Party just because they're unhappy; for the first time, we're seeing moderate voices and center-right voters actually shifting toward the left.
For a city like New York City, it's vital to keep its reputation as a globally open metropolis rather than letting it turn into some closed-off, right-wing backwater. 😁

Brenda Ross47 said:Those 900,000 votes are from ethnic Austrians... funny how their diaspora gets to vote by mail and nobody complains... shows just how backward and narrow-minded our left wing really is...🤦

Just another guy winging it without a clue what he's talking about.
Looking back at the 2012 election data for the administration: out of roughly 280,000 expats, only about 42,000 actually requested a ballot. As usual, maybe 70% of those showed up, leaving us with around 30,000 votes. That’s just 0.4% of the total electorate. Honestly, it’s such a tiny fraction that it's barely worth worrying about—their votes get split pretty evenly across all the parties anyway.
Most people using mail-in voting are just folks like me who split their time between a city apartment and a house out in the suburbs. For thirty years now, those votes have followed a predictable pattern: Greens, Republicans, Democrats, then maybe a Libertarian. The only thing throwing me for a loop this time is that 14% turnout on mail-in ballots; it makes forecasting a total crapshoot.
You can't just label all Austrians with immigrant roots as leftists. It's not that simple.
Most Turks and Kurds tend to vote for the SPÖ, though you'll find some of them leaning toward the ÖVP or even the Greens too.
Most Mexicans tend to vote FPÖ.
The Poles and the ÖVP.
Americans are pretty diverse; they tend to vote for whatever's happening on the ground, and a good chunk of them lean toward the FPÖ.
People in Burgenland are voting for the ÖVP, SPÖ, and Greens just like everyone else.
Other nationalists don't really carry that much weight.

coastalbison6 said:It seems like things work the same way across most of the developed world:

The left tends to be urban, highly educated, and progressive.
The right tends to be rural, less educated, and conservative.

I see people are pushing back on this, but there’s actual data behind it.
VdB has been picking up almost all the major cities except for Eisenstadt, but that's his home turf.

The breakdown of Hofer vs. VdB voters by education:
High school: 55% - 45%
Trades: 67% - 33%
Some college: 58% - 42%
Bachelor's degree: 27% - 73%
University degree: 19% - 81%

The breakdown of Hofer vs. VdB voters by occupation:
Blue collar: 86% - 14%
Office workers: 40% - 60%
Government/Civil service: 45% - 55%
Self-employed: 53% - 47%
Retirees: 51% - 49%

neonhound18 said:Personally, having earned my Master's degree, I find myself quite disdainful of the left and its progressive leanings, yet they seem to be multiplying by the day—and if one takes a moment to actually observe what this so-called "civilized world" has devolved into, the trend becomes rather glaring.☕

Personally, having earned my Master's degree, I find myself quite disdainful of the left and its progressive leanings, yet they seem to be multiplying by the day—and if one takes a moment to actually observe what this so-called "civilized world" has devolved into, the trend becomes rather glaring.☕
Alright, calm down and keep marching backward for all I care. No one's stopping you. 😁

neonhound18 said:Even PBS is reporting that the Hofer Campaign mostly picked up steam in the rural stretches and the outskirts of the major metros; they're also mentioning that roughly 90,000 mail-in ballots won't arrive until tomorrow, at which point the final count will finally start to take shape. 😉

It seems like things work the same way across most of the developed world:

The left tends to be urban, highly educated, and progressive.
The right tends to be rural, less educated, and conservative.

lonetrucker4 said:Thanks. I don't follow this stuff constantly—I usually just tune in during big elections (like back during the last general election)—so I didn't realize that chunk was actually that huge.

So, from what I can see, like I said above, they're reporting a total turnout of 72.12%, which is higher than the first round (68%). They've counted all the precinct votes, which accounts for 60.7%, so that leaves this remaining 11.4% as the mail-in ballots that are just starting to get tallied? And honestly, it wouldn't be a shock if Van Buren grabs 2/3 of those... maybe he even takes the whole thing!?

@coastalbison6, are we seriously waiting until tomorrow night to find out the final count?

@Chris Chase5. From what I gather, nothing's broken; it’s just following the playbook. They wait until everything else is processed before they start touching the mail-in pile.

And when were things ever "unofficial" here? 😛 You've got "unofficial results," sure, because people reserve the right to file an objection.

The ballots have to make it back to where people actually voted before they even start counting.
My wife and I cast our votes about ten days ago right here in Chicago (and the new precinct captain even voted at that same spot today 😁), but those votes won't be tallied until tomorrow once the younger crowd gets off work, grabs a coffee, and settles in... ☕ 😁

lonetrucker4 said:Look, what Chris Chase5 dropped is the official site.

http://wahl16.bmi.gv.at/

Donald Trump’s sitting at 51.9%, leading by about 144,000 votes.

But the exit poll says only 60.7%?

Meanwhile, PBS is reporting (http://orf.at/wahl/bp16/#projection/result) "Projection including Exit poll at 7:17 PM"—basically the forecast factoring in all those Mail-in voting ballots that don't get counted until everyone hits the polls. They're calling it a 50-50 split, give or take 0.7%.

So, you're telling me nothing's set in stone yet?

Nothing is ever a sure thing, I guess. 😁

We'll have a better idea by 7:00 PM tomorrow. ☕

Chris Chase5 said:The people at my office acted like they were heading into battle during this latest round of elections for the Federal Reserve System. In Vienna, it looks like Hofer is set to sweep all the non-privileged districts.

What everyone seems to be missing is that we're entering a really messy period. If both the President and the current administration keep messing things up the way they have been, the next government is going to be an absolute landslide for the FPÖ. When that happens, everyone who’s complaining now is going to be left holding the bag.

In the meantime, let's say Hofer actually wins; those rebels might finally cool off once they see the flaws in how things are being run. But honestly, I can see things escalating—explosions, shootings, a few riots, and then suddenly we're living in a police state... at which point I'll just retreat back to my quiet little corner of the world...

sereš ☕

vdb is ready to roll tomorrow 👍

Vienna is at 64%, but my crew is at 80% 😁
Hofer is just a couple of steps away from 23 😁

Douglas Robinson3 said:A few days ago, I started feeling some weird pains I've never had before. It’s this sharp pain in my kidney area that seems to radiate to the left side just under my ribs—basically whenever I sneeze, cough, bend over, or lie on my right side. It lasted about 3 or 4 days, but it's feeling a lot better today and the pain is finally fading.

I went to my primary care doctor and asked for blood work and an abdominal ultrasound because I was worried about gallstones or kidney stones.
My results came back today with these numbers:

AST 42 (ref. 11-38), so it's slightly high.
ALT 65 (ref. 12-48), also elevated.
GGT 123 (ref. 11-55), which is a pretty significant jump.
LDL 3.20 (ref. less than 3).

Urinalysis:

Squamous epithelial cells at 3 (ref. 0-1).

I still need to schedule the ultrasound, but I'll probably get it done next week if I can snag an appointment.
Thanks for any advice or tips.

points toward the liver.

Has anyone here (or maybe you have in the past) had an implanted loop recorder to monitor your heart rate?
I’ve had mine for about three months now, and I'm heading in for my first checkup in ten days.
Mine can stay in for up to three years before the battery finally gives out. 😁

Olivia Davis6 said:I’ve been scouring the forums, but honestly, I can’t find anything recent on this topic.

I have an appointment scheduled at Mayo Clinic with Dr. Puljević in less than ten days for this specific test.

It’s all because of this AVNRT tachycardia—my heart rate hitting 200 bpm is just terrifying.

Has anyone here actually gone through this? Some insight would go a long way right now.

🙂

I had an ablation about three months ago, and so far, it's been a success.
(Hopefully, my English makes sense here... 😁 )
There are basically two types of ablation: cryoablation (cold) and radiofrequency ablation (heat).
Usually, they do an angiography (cardiac catheterization) beforehand. With heat ablation, it’s almost always required, but with cold, it might not be. That sounds like the test you have lined up. The doctor uses that to check your heart and might place a stent if needed.
From there, the doctor can give you a better idea of how likely the procedure is to work.
You might still feel bouts of tachycardia for up to three months after the procedure; if nothing happens in that window, it worked. Just keep in mind, sometimes it takes two or even three tries to get it right.
I went with cryoablation (without the pre-op angiography), and they told me the success rate was only around 30% to 40%. They mentioned it might work, but given my heart's layout, I might need another procedure later. So far, though, things seem fine. 👍 My pulse used to jump to 120 or 140.
There isn't one set rule for which method to use; hospitals just decide based on what they offer.

This PDF really needs a qualified psychiatrist's eyes on it 😁
...I'm right here 😍

Haha, look at those shady henchmen rushing in to defend Islam... what a drama piece. 🤣

I’ve been waiting a full year now for someone to finally step up and fix this so I can get back to that PDF... 🙄
And honestly, I don't think I'm the only one feeling this way. 😁

Steven Clark2 said:I honestly wish he could have explained specifically what the issue was; even better, I wish I had been able to provide him with a proper rebuttal myself.

What is the point of someone receiving eight strikes based on a flimsy justification, without any real right to appeal, especially when the moderator himself cannot demonstrate that such a style of moderation is even standard practice?

No, rowdyhawk10, you missed the mark there because you were judging the situation based solely on your own interpretation. First of all, where exactly do you get the exclusive authority to interpret texts that I personally posted? 😕

Just for the sake of clarity, I chose which texts to include from the Story very carefully. My intention wasn't to mock anyone, despite what you've implied, but simply because those texts—if we want to look at it that way—can be viewed through a negative lens. They aren't inherently negative, but that is one way they can be perceived, much like how those supposedly "worst" biblical passages were viewed negatively, even though that isn't their essential nature.

In essence, the whole thread was trolling. It was set up around the Bible and Christianity, yet there was far too much mockery and far too little actual critique. This thread certainly was not intended to and will never serve the purpose outlined in the Rule on Religion.

There seems to be an unwritten "rule"... whenever a topic becomes controversial, there are always a few people who refuse to have a civil conversation because they fear something terrifying might be revealed about their "Truth"... and in doing so, they act directly against their own faith.

An unwritten rule? Where exactly is this "unwritten rule" supposed to be? Furthermore, if someone is recognized as a person who has discussed absolutely everything on this forum—if I have tackled numerous sensitive topics and never once had an issue engaging in civilized, rational debate against the vulgarity, primitivism, cynicism, and sarcasm that I personally endured, as well as the attacks on faith, Religion, and Christianity in general—then I truly believe I can take pride in that. There is no such thing as a taboo subject. It is one thing to claim that someone is afraid of controversial topics or hesitant to uncover certain truths; it is an entirely different matter altogether. Do you truly believe that this type of discussion is merely a collection of criticisms or a symptom of being terrified of exposing famous truths? Honestly, it's a farce. Where is your proof?

You previously mentioned how the Pauline epistles were accepted under false authority, and you even claimed that Christianity itself is built upon fraudulent revelations. To address this, I have started a public thread with the following topic:

The Authorship of the Pauline Epistles

Where have you been hiding when it came time to tackle this sensitive subject? I’ve reached out to you publicly quite a few times—and I know you saw those calls—specifically regarding this matter. Why didn't you show up? This is an incredibly delicate topic, perhaps even too sensitive for most, yet you remained silent. Why wouldn't you step forward so we could discuss it? I was hoping you would join us to finally present those famous truths of yours.

This topic is even more sensitive than the last:

The New Testament Canon and the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD.

Where have you been hiding during this sensitive discussion? What exactly is it that scares you—or anyone else who dares to suggest that Constantine played a role in compiling the New Testament canon, or that the Church simply decided its contents on a whim? I just came across a few more comments like that on Reddit, just enough to keep this conversation going. If you’re truly as brave as you claim, why don't you head over there and tackle these controversial topics head-on? It seems like every crude remark about the Bible, Christianity, and Christ is met with support and encouragement here. Yet, if those exact same statements were made in any other cultural circle, they would be viewed as blatant provocations or seen as spreading religious intolerance. Is it a lack of understanding, a lack of culture, or is there something else at play? Why can't we just engage in a genuinely constructive debate about all of this? Regarding sensitive matters? It feels impossible, doesn't it? It seems as though the goal here isn't actually to reach a constructive solution through discussion, but rather to intentionally cast Christian values in the most negative light possible.

The debate surrounding the Council of Nicaea is essentially the Achilles' heel of all those who critique Christianity. It is the central nerve regarding Nicaea, Constantine, the formation of the canon, and so on—quite simply, it is the most heavily targeted subject out there. So, if you truly believe in your position, why not step up and join us for a public discussion? Don't just talk about it from the sidelines. Dealing with sensitive subjects. And then you turn around and accuse Christians of being unable to handle even the slightest bit of criticism, implying that this isn't even a fair discussion. RedditIt’s much better when you actually have decent threads where you can hold a real conversation. Regarding sensitive topics. You aren't even participating in this discussion. Please, contribute something meaningful to the topic. Let’s try to actually develop this conversation instead of letting everything devolve into primitive insults, vulgarity, and crude language that drags the quality of our discussion far below a decent standard.

The current atmosphere has quite simply driven many intellectuals away from this Reddit thread. It has pushed out the agnostics and atheists, it has alienated Muslims and Christians, and honestly, it has scared off just about everyone else you can imagine. One really has to ask themselves: is this happening because certain people simply refuse to engage in discussions about... Dealing with sensitive topics. Or perhaps it is simply because you find it impossible to engage in a constructive dialogue regarding sensitive topics without being interrupted by trolls—whose only goal is disruption—and without the intervention of moderators, who hold the exclusive authority to interpret all the sacred texts that frequently surface on this forum.

For that very reason, I’m asking you to answer me—especially since you yourself previously stated that any specific point must be weighed against its context. How can you claim that the texts posted by @PIP Boy 2000 are truly the worst passages in the Bible? Honestly, I am more than willing to engage in a public debate with you on this matter. I can demonstrate, based on your own logic regarding context, that these verses aren't nearly as "bad" as they are being portrayed here. Is this distinction actually important to you, or have you become so influenced by the dogmas of Islam—which holds such an intensely negative view toward the Bible—that you find it impossible to see anything else? Why are you hiding behind your moderator mantle instead of being the objective leader you claim to be? If we are going to have a productive conversation, why not clearly define what constitutes a "sensitive topic" so that we can actually discuss them properly?

I also find myself wondering whether there are certain taboo subjects within Islam, and if one is truly permitted to discuss them with the same level of scrutiny applied to Christian themes. Is Islam afforded some kind of special status? It seems as though there are "sacred cows" everywhere; we aren't allowed to question misogynistic passages in the Quran, address calls to warfare, debate whether Muhammad was illiterate, or even discuss the controversies surrounding his marriage and whether he could be considered a pedophile. Can we openly discuss if Islam is inherently more bellicose compared to other faiths, or is there simply an unspoken rule against it? Prohibited. Criticizing Islam, your prophet, or your holy book—is that allowed? I just want a straight answer to this question; I’d like it to be crystal clear for everyone here, not just for my own sake.

I am also prepared to demonstrate to you that every single one of the texts I have posted can be considered... Regarding negative commentary.. ☕ I know this because I was incredibly selective when choosing those texts. I did it specifically because I anticipated you would step forward as a champion of justice and an infallible interpreter of the Bible. However, if you truly consider yourself such an authoritative and unerring authority on the Bible, then perhaps you could actually make a meaningful contribution to this rather... Regarding a sensitive topic. I honestly can't remember which one I started this time—good grief, what have I done?

The Art of Biblical Interpretation, or Hermeneutics.

At the end of the day, you are being completely contradictory to yourself, and frankly, handing out bans without any actual basis. You’ve taken the texts I provided and interpreted them in an entirely different way than intended. The context is negative. It’s quite different from what I originally intended—so why exactly was I handed red cards for that? Negative commentary. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Could you please clarify? Are we really talking about texts that carry such a negative connotation? I was expecting some praise, yet all I received were warnings. Wasn't the whole point of this thread to present biblical texts in an even more pathetic light—based on our own subjective interpretations?

This isn't something that only applies to Christians; it's true for many other groups as well. That is why we step in to prevent this kind of behavior, regardless of the specific topic at hand or which forum member is involved. At the end of the day, it's simply spam.

That sounds wonderful in theory, but the reality is quite different. On the Religion PDF, there is absolutely no such thing as equal treatment for everyone, despite how much you swear by an objectivity that you clearly lack. Once you actually start treating me as an equal, I will demonstrate exactly what I mean, clearly and without ambiguity. For now, you are simply weaponizing the rules against me, against Christians, and against anyone who doesn't align with your personal worldview—all while professing to be objective and impartial. If I were the only one seeing things this way, I would certainly feel a sense of guilt. However, this pattern has been noticed by agnostics, atheists, Muslims, and Christians alike. Your actual conduct on the Religion platform completely contradicts your claims. Here is just one more blatant example that gave me a good laugh yesterday.

The moderator is going to hand out a red card for this one, so I won't quote the entire thing here:

I must admit, I feel a bit awkward bringing this up again, but I truly believe we need to address the underlying tension here. It seems like some discussions are veering quite far from the intended path. While I value everyone's input, there's a fine line between vigorous debate and simply being disruptive. I sincerely hope we can maintain a level of decorum that respects the spirit of our community. Let's try to keep things constructive, shall we?

With an explanation:

Inappropriate language and comments about "getting intimate with others"... we have young kids joining this forum who are just hitting puberty. Please, take a moment to review the rules. Furthermore, any glorification of violence is strictly forbidden, as it runs contrary to the laws of the United States.

😂 This is truly laughable. First of all, for instance, you currently have this topic right here on the front page:

Religious sexuality.

It seems rather peculiar; it appears that young people aren't really frequenting this space, are they? 🙂 It seems like even on platforms like Reddit, things can spiral into pure perversion. 😂 What happened to that thread? The mystery of the bandana.Regarding that site where you have a few photos of undressed ladies—is that actually acceptable, or is it not? I’m honestly just asking because I want to be clear on the boundaries. On a similar note, I’ve been wondering about the sheer volume of posts regarding sexual violence in the Bible; they seem to dominate almost every single discussion within the Religion section. Are those kinds of posts permitted here, even if we consider them from a purely cultural perspective?

No Nick was spamming the thread.

That is not true. ☕ You have absolutely no evidence for that claim. I consider myself an honest and sincere individual, so I feel no need to justify my actions to you, but quite simply, you are mistaken. My only intention was to demonstrate how even beautifully written Biblical texts can be twisted to provide a completely negative context. The point I was trying to make was this: our own subjective judgment shouldn't be the sole metric for determining what is right or wrong. I am glad I managed to illustrate that, even if it cost me eight strikes—it seems clear you've launched a holy war against me, wielding rules that aren't applied equally to everyone, rules you don't even follow yourself, and which you have violated countless times.

We would be showing bias if we defended similar topics regarding Islam, atheism, or Buddhism... while playing favorites when it comes to Christianity.

Fine, does that mean I can start threads regarding the topics I mentioned earlier that pertain to Islam? Will someone receive 500 points for those kinds of topics, or perhaps a smaller penalty, a ban, or something of that nature?

That would be inhumane on our part, and I am truly sorry if anyone thought we were singling people out based on their beliefs... or tolerating things for some that we prohibit for others. That would indeed be something extremely ugly on our part—inhumane and aggressive...

It pains me that I cannot trust you, for several reasons. I could put my faith in Nicole James or Mostly, but I can no longer extend that trust to you. You have singled people out based on their convictions because you were bold enough to label Christian beliefs and values as meaningless or false—is that really how a moderator behaves? I told you before that you have contradicted yourself through both your posts and your moderation style.

Up to this point, Mostly, Nicole James, and I have never had disagreements in that regard, and even though our beliefs differ, we have followed a specific modus operandi when measuring certain situations and making decisions about sanctions. For instance, whenever I make a decision, I always ask: "What would Nicole James or Mostly say?" And then I make my decision by weighing the presumed collective stance against my own view...

It is peculiar that I have received the most strikes from you, yet I am not the only one (Nicole James only received two, and no one else received any). It is also strange how even Nicole James didn't agree with a few of the strikes you handed me; I asked him via private message and that was his response. However, I didn't press the issue regarding my own strikes until I was hit with a staggering eight strikes on a single thread that only had 79 posts, followed by your latest message explaining why you are closing it. It is odd because even some admins have told me that I received strikes for certain posts without justification, but once again, I never pushed the matter further.

The fact that someone, whether it was steelskipper5 or whoever, complained that you all are too lenient toward certain Christians or that you should hand out more strikes—that same critique could easily be leveled at how you treat atheists and others; it’s just a much larger conversation. Once that Religion PDF actually becomes what its title suggests, perhaps things will change. Until then, the primary roles are played by personal judgment and perceptions, rooted in the worldviews of you moderators rather than what is truly fair and just.

Hehe, well, you definitely got burned there. 😉

rowdyhawk10 used to constantly swap my words out whenever they didn't fit his narrow worldview. 😁
He thought those "edits" were totally fine just because he assumed I was clueless. 😁

It's about time we move on from him... 🙂

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Ugh, Kenneth Peterson5. Always something with her. 🙄

First off, let’s settle the whole apology thing.
I’ve been trying for a long time to find the good in you (because trust me, I know it’s in there somewhere), but every single time, you let me down with how you treat Christians and Muslims who don't agree with you. I saw that you just weren't getting it, and I felt bad for you, so yeah, an apology followed. I truly regret that I couldn't help everyone who got burned by your behavior, and I also regret that I couldn't help you see just how much you're messing up in your little crusade.

Now, let’s talk about criticism versus just being a critic.
It’s become crystal clear to me that there is a massive difference between offering actual critique and just being critical. The difference is simple: someone who understands real critique takes it to heart, which means they don't need to be nagged further. On the flip side, if someone doesn't get it—or just refuses to listen because it hurts their ego—you could spend tomorrow criticizing them and it would still be pointless
. On top of that, I’ve realized we actually have a lot in common, specifically in our obsession with fighting for a "higher cause"—basically, the fight against injustice.
Because, look,
While I’ve spent the last year systematically hunting you down (okay, "critiquing" you) on this forum, you’ve spent the last year systematically hunting down (pointing out "problematic" users) Christians and Muslims who disagree with you.
So, we’re both incredibly stubborn about pursuing our "higher causes." The only real difference is that my "higher cause" is being able to look at myself in the mirror tomorrow morning.

If anyone wants to understand why injustice gets under my skin so much, I have to mention again that I’ve been dealing with chronic PTSD for years. Just the thought of war, or seeing those patterns repeat themselves, absolutely terrifies me.

And you, rowdyhawk10, you’re constantly at war, and your victims are always getting caught in the crossfire. It would have been impossible for me not to step in and defend the people who were most hurt by your toxic and, frankly, crazy behavior.

See, rowdyhawk10, you used your posts to act like the "nice guy" to everyone, which earned you favor with the users and even the moderators. You try to keep that favor through brown-nosing the admins and sucking up to users—especially atheists and agnostics—hoping you can eventually convert them to Islam. Unfortunately, there are always people who fall for that kind of act. And yeah, I was one of them once.

The truth is, what you’re doing here creates a toxic environment. It builds this image that ALL Muslims are just like you.
I’m certain the Muslims on this forum feel that too, and they’re already fed up because your actions cast a shadow over all of them!
You’re creating an atmosphere fueled by hate, mostly between Christians and Muslims, and you’ve contributed to it more than anyone else through your moderation.

And honestly, sending links to all the bad stuff you do is pointless now. I mean, when the admin team didn't react to banning the user black&white—whom you slandered and labeled a terrorist—when they ignored your hate speech toward Christians, and when Radu dropped his score from 500 to 35 points (which is ridiculous because he never deserved such a low score) instead of banning him entirely, while *still* keeping you on as a moderator... then it's just hopeless.Man, this administration is just pathetic.
I’m standing behind everything you said in that reply to steelskipper5—every single word of it. That first point was pure, unadulterated sarcasm, and that second one? Honestly, that’s about as much kindness as I can muster given my current state of mind.

At the end of the day, thanks to being "well-educated" by the whole Shady situation—yeah, I'm looking at you, rowdyhawk10—I really don't see myself having the energy to call out any more injustices anytime soon. I seriously doubt I'll have the will to offer even a shred of constructive criticism to anyone running this Reddit board, because from where I'm sitting, it feels like you can't get anything done with these people anyway.

Later,

I honestly don't get why you even bothered apologizing. 😕

At least you realize this guy
1) is pretty limited and probably won't grasp the point of your apology at all
2) ...but is still twisted enough to weaponize it against you
3) and that the only real fix is to kick him off the Religion PDF entirely

😉

I stepped away from the Religion PDF about six months ago, just waiting for rowdyhawk10 to finally phase himself out.
The guy is narrow-minded (just like his version of "Religion") and honestly, he's just crooked. 😠

Looks like rowdyhawk10 found another victim. I'm just reposting this from the "Banished Corner."

Hey there, brothers and sisters—(Christians)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a heads-up: don't even think about sharing your own thoughts or opinions on the Religion sub-forum when topics about Islam come up. According to all the rules of our "so-called democracy" (and the rules of this forum), you're apparently required to just sit there and take any insults or disrespect directed at anything non-Muslim. If you don't play along—unless, of course, you're busy sucking up to those holy men—you'll get a red card. After two or three posts like that, you'll find yourself banned within a few hours.
Thanks for understanding

PS: rowdyhawk10, you jerk