Posts by Daniel Ward87

Edward Cooper2 said:Does anyone know why the Minister of Construction took in those textile workers? Are they planning to send the seamstresses to a construction site? Two on the mixer, two driving concrete to the crane, two up in the hoist, six on masonry duty... God help us, what kind of country are we living in???????

For those who aren't aware... withholding wages is a criminal offense, and the owner of Orljava is America.

Arthur Smith15 said:Oh, please... save those crocodile tears for someone who actually cares. 😁 You’re out here acting like a martyr, but you’re really just the one flooding the History section with pure garbage—nonsense, stupidity, trolling, and total pseudoscience. Honestly, most of your posts are just useless filler, like you're using some internet bullshit generator to copy-paste the same old clichés from one thread to the next without a second thought. I’ve seen your whole track record here and over on the County Executive boards—points, bans, whining, trolling, spamming, and endless appeals... You should be embarrassed by all this constant complaining and playing the victim. 🤦

Regarding that nonsense about clones; lucky for you and the pollster that I'm not lonetrucker4, otherwise you both would have been looking at a history of logging off a long time ago.

Gerald Fowler79 said:Daniel Ward87, can you tell me why I got banned?

If we're talking about that bit where I mentioned "some random guy attacking the French," then yeah, that's factual. Try searching Google for anything about the attacker—you won't find a thing.

Please lift the ban. I should be allowed to question the official narrative. Personally, I think the CIA is pulling the strings here, and that's just my opinion, which should be free speech. Thanks.

loneskipper10 said:Why did my post about the devil get nuked in the religion sub? Apparently, you can talk about rocket science there, but demons are off-limits. Who’s actually running the show here... 🤦 You can post all day about how certain groups act, but bring up demons in the religion thread and boom—deleted. Why was my post taken down?

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:What "well-known views" am I talking about, honey? 😍

I can't right now, my internet is acting up. Just go check my old thread; he's quoting lonetrucker4's post.

Wait, it's probably this one, but I can't see the full thing because of my connection:

rustywalker42 said:That is the official emblem of the American people in Canada. Now, go ahead—bill me for my troubles.

stormytiger4 said:Can I get a link to the published meta-analysis being mentioned here?
The website looks a bit messy, it’s hard to tell who is actually running the project, and I can't find the first person listed on the cover (John Hamel) anywhere on Google Scholar.

driftingorca16 said:I clearly don't fit into this red versus black colorblindness you guys have going on. I’m not "black," and I’m not "red." It’s all colors to me. The only way today's "reds" make sense is if they see nothing but black around them—which is exactly what you're doing. But I won't let anyone label me as being on the "black" side. Especially not from ideological zealots who ignore war crimes right in front of their faces while preaching about pacifism and anti-fascism. To me, that’s just a gross distortion of the facts and an insult. Period.

I’m not reading minds here; I’m just reading what was actually written. He said what he said. That isn't an insinuation or trolling; it’s just quoting him.

We’re living in the 21st century. America is a sovereign nation, a member of the EU and NATO, and we forge strategic military partnerships with Israel. So, what’s your problem?

driftingorca16 said:Having lonetrucker4 acting as moderator is getting exhausting:

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote
If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.

Charles Fox10 said:The appeal is granted.☕

Brenda Taylor13 said:??

Joseph Stewart38 said:Give me a break...

driftingorca37 said:Here’s the deal:
When you start throwing around arguments like... Just my two cents. If you're going to bring up Goat, just state the numbers directly instead of trying to dance around them through Vojki, Index, Pickering & Baskin, or Cohen. And let's be real—don't call them "absolute truths" or "undeniable proof," because they aren't. If you’re going to cite Pickering & Baskin, actually stick to their real arguments and conclusions instead of just using their names as a smokescreen to hide what Goat is doing.

I don't have any content to rewrite yet. Please provide the post you'd like me to work on! says:
That’s pretty much everything I was trying to get at.
Honestly, you have to decide for yourself how much weight to give an opinion from some Goat based out of New York City back in '91, especially when it was published by the Columbia Journalism School regarding the formation of the Republican Party.

driftingorca37 said:It’s basically the same thing you mods do when you start handing out bans just because someone tries to back up their posts about stuff like Auschwitz with actual data or links that you'd rather just suppress and label as extremist.
You’re just looking at one side of the coin here. For some reason, you guys keep dodging the real issue by refusing to mention Goat or what went down in New York City back in '91.

bluemason3 said:It’s definitely not bulletproof. I’ve seen plenty of nonsense fly my way from reviews within my own family.

Joseph Stewart38 said:The conclusion drawn from a scientific paper using those kinds of sources is pretty much obvious.

briskbison55 said:Even if that whole theory about the Republican Party being full of former communists turns out to be true, who actually cares?