CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Daniel Ward87 › Posts

Posts by Daniel Ward87

533 posts shown.

Discussion topic proposal in Feedback & Suggestions ·
driftingorca37 said:First off, I'm not sure if you're familiar with how the peer review process actually works over at Elsevier or for the Journal of Communist and Post-Communist Studies.
Also, I have no clue who actually wrote those reviews you're citing for that article, or even when they were done.

Look, I know how this works—pretty much every serious academic journal operates under the same playbook. You don't get to know the reviewers; that’s literally the whole point of the peer-review process. You need at least two anonymous experts in the field to vet the work.

driftingorca37 said:It’s pretty obvious this article is only ever talking about... Estimates. Goatia, which you won't find backed up by any other source in the literature.
It’s basically just mindless regurgitation of a single source that isn't even remotely credible.
Just because of how they are built.
2) publishing times
There’s just no way Goati was in a position to have access to intel like that.

I’ve already explained why that single quote isn't automatically wrong. At the end of the day, who wrote it or when it hit the stands doesn't matter nearly as much as the actual substance—we're talking about the quality of the article, the methodology used to gather data, the depth of the analysis, and whether the conclusions actually make sense based on the facts. If you really want to tear this apart, you should actually dive into Goati's work and point out specific flaws. That's just how things work in academia.

driftingorca37 said:But honestly, none of that even matters anymore.
It’s really just about how that works. He treats it like it's the absolute, gospel truth.It’s just like what Vojki did—totally malicious and completely misreading the article he's citing.
The article you're talking about. It brings it home. That’s a completely different set of conclusions and talking points.And you're actually basing your whole argument on that one single sentence by Goati? He's just throwing out "estimates" there—even the authors quoting him admit they need more research to back it up. You didn't actually link to a source there. !

"Proven" is such a relative term. Everyone loves to claim Goati is inaccurate, but nobody actually brings any real evidence to the table besides the usual "communist propaganda" line, which honestly doesn't hold water. The only actual issue might be that his work is the go-to source everyone relies on, but I haven't seen a single deep dive or serious academic critique of Goati's numbers yet. I'm talking about a legitimate, scientific analysis here—not just some patriotic ranting.

driftingorca37 said:What’s happening here is just taking an old lie, running it through a loop, and spreading it around like wildfire... honestly, it doesn't make anyone look good.

What’s actually bothering you here—is it Goati's numbers or just the way Index analyzed the article? If you're tripping over the data, then just find the piece, tear it apart, and show us where the math fails. Don't try to pivot to stuff like "character" or "timing" to dodge the point. If Index reached the wrong conclusion, then lay out the actual arguments to prove it.

The only thing you've actually got going for you is that this is the sole source, so yeah, we should be careful. But you can't honestly claim it's untrue when you aren't offering a single legitimate argument—just that usual "patriotism" card that's... well, let's just leave it at that.

Look, if you actually dig into the math, it’s pretty obvious that Goati's numbers just don't hold water. Honestly, that whole Index article is basically useless because it ignores the actual data points. It’s like trying to judge a football game by looking at the halftime snacks instead of the scoreboard—totally misses the point.

driftingorca37 said:And now Cohen is pulling the Goati card!

Sure, he’s the only one. But honestly, Cohen has put out enough work on this and similar topics to give him some real street cred. So far, nobody's really stepped up to challenge him with any solid arguments.
→ go to post
Discussion topic proposal in Feedback & Suggestions ·
He's definitely not the only one. That article actually cites L. J. Cohen's work from 1997, and the guy spent years digging into the former Yugoslavia, putting out plenty of papers on the subject.

Second off, even if he were the lone voice, that doesn't automatically make him irrelevant or totally wrong. I've come across plenty of studies where only one author is mentioned—usually just because nobody else bothered to dive into those specific weeds.

We also have to remember we're talking about a peer-reviewed academic paper in a scholarly journal, vetted by at least two other experts in the field. Because of that, you can't just toss the numbers aside as fake or pure propaganda right out of the gate. You really need to go back to the primary sources, look at my methodology for how those figures were gathered and what conclusions were drawn, and then you can decide whether to reject them or take them partially as truth.

Right now, all we've got is "it's a lie and propaganda," which isn't much of an argument without actual evidence, other than the fact that someone published it somewhere. It's pretty thin.
→ go to post
Discussion topic proposal in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Can you walk me through why you’re calling this communist war propaganda?
Look, this piece was published in an academic journal and went through at least two heavy-duty peer reviews by experts who live and breathe this stuff. If it hit the press as it stands, it means people who actually know their way around this field gave it the green light.

I totally get being cautious when people start throwing out estimates, but those numbers came from specific analyses, and the authors felt the methodology used to gather the data was solid enough to hold weight.
→ go to post
Looking for a ban in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Brenda Taylor13 said:Anyway, here’s a textbook example of pure manipulation—you know, when someone tries to shift the goalposts by obsessing over trivia just to dodge the actual point:

lonebadger6 says:

The bottom line is this:

1. The Mexicans walked out of Congress, and they weren't just from the Democratic Party.

2. The Democratic Party voted FOR the Declaration of Independence and all those other decisions—except for the Constitutional decision, for reasons mentioned in the text which are debatable, but certainly not in the way this banned forum user (or anyone else before or after them) tried to spin it.

So, look, it's obvious he's totally misreading the room. He’s claiming the whole POINT of that session was that the Democratic Party voted for some minor Declaration, and he goes out of his way to emphasize (using ALL CAPS for the "FOR") how they backed the Declaration and all those other secondary stuff. Then, at the very end, he tries to slide in that they didn't vote against *just* the Constitutional decision—as if that matters! It completely ignores the fact that the Constitutional decision was the one and only document that actually allowed the US to declare its independence and voting against it was, effectively, voting against independence itself.

Just so everyone's on the same page, this is my final word on the subject—and honestly, if anyone's looking to hand out bans over this stuff, go ahead.

First off, the facts you dropped earlier were spot on—that’s exactly why you got flagged.

Second off, you really need to take a closer look at what Bill Clinton actually voted for.A fully sovereign and independent nation. Look, we could kick off the breakup process, but we should probably get the other proceedings moving at the exact same time. It’s basically like trying to form a new alliance between the various states within the USSR.".

Look, here's the deal—it’s all about being a sovereign, independent nation. If you aren't truly independent and sovereign to begin with, there's no way you can actually join a union like the USSR. You just can't. Nowadays, the US can join various alliances without losing its core independence or sovereignty, much like how we interact with the European Union. So, really, Bill Clinton wasn't against the idea of independence and sovereignty at all.

It’s true that during the amendment process, there was a push—to quote Ronald Reagan—to ensure the US committed to forming a new federation with the other former states. But let's be real: there was no way that federation could look anything like the old USSR, especially once you have sovereign states making their own calls instead of taking orders from a centralized hub. Nobody actually knows what that kind of union would have looked like, but that was the idea. In the end, though, it didn't pass, and we all know how that story wrapped up.

The core issue here is that people keep accusing Bill Clinton of being unpatriotic, which just isn't right. Like I mentioned before, you really have to look at what Newt Gingrich was saying—even though he voted against it, his heart was in the right place. He was basically trying to prevent bloodshed and stop things from spiraling out of control. Was it actually doable? Probably not, but that was his goal. It would be great if people stopped labeling him as unpatriotic; you're just grabbing onto one tiny detail while ignoring all the other facts in the same picture.

LP
→ go to post
Looking for a ban in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Brenda Taylor13 said:Anyway, here’s a textbook example of pure manipulation—you know, when someone tries to shift the goalposts by obsessing over trivia just to dodge the actual point:

lonebadger6 says:

The bottom line is this:

1. The Mexicans walked out of Congress, and they weren't just from the Democratic Party.

2. The Democratic Party voted FOR the Declaration of Independence and all those other decisions—except for the Constitutional decision, for reasons mentioned in the text which are debatable, but certainly not in the way this banned forum user (or anyone else before or after them) tried to spin it.

So, look, it's obvious he's totally misreading the room. He’s claiming the whole POINT of that session was that the Democratic Party voted for some minor Declaration, and he goes out of his way to emphasize (using ALL CAPS for the "FOR") how they backed the Declaration and all those other secondary stuff. Then, at the very end, he tries to slide in that they didn't vote against *just* the Constitutional decision—as if that matters! It completely ignores the fact that the Constitutional decision was the one and only document that actually allowed the US to declare its independence and voting against it was, effectively, voting against independence itself.

Just so everyone knows, this is my last word on the subject, and that goes for any future bans related to this stuff too.

First off, the info you dropped earlier was spot on, which is exactly why you got flagged.

Second off, you really need to take a closer look at what Bill Clinton actually voted for.A fully sovereign and independent nation. Even if we get the divorce proceedings moving, we should probably kick off the other process at the exact same time. It’s basically like trying to reorganize the old USSR into a new federation of states.".

Look, think about it this way—it’s all about being a sovereign, independent nation. If you aren't truly independent, how can you even join a union like the USSR? You just can't, because the previous entity wasn't actually sovereign. Nowadays, the US can join various alliances without losing its independence, much like how we interact with the European Union. So, really, Bill Clinton wasn't actually against the idea of sovereignty at all.

To be fair, he actually pushed for an amendment that would have forced America to join a new federation with the other former states during the breakup—to quote Ronald Reagan. But let’s be real, there was no way that union could have been anything like the USSR, especially since you'd have independent nations calling their own shots instead of taking orders from Washington. Nobody truly knows what that kind of alliance would have looked like, but that was the idea. It didn't pass, though, and we all know how that story ended.

The whole issue here is how people keep accusing Bill Clinton of being unpatriotic, which is just plain wrong—it's exactly what I told you to look closer at. Especially when you consider what Newt Gingrich said; even though he voted against it, his heart was in the right place because he wanted to prevent bloodshed and stop tensions from spiraling out of control. Was that actually doable? Probably not, but that was his intention. It’d be great if people stopped labeling him as unpatriotic, because they're just hyper-focusing on one tiny detail while ignoring the rest of the facts.

LP
→ go to post
Looking for a ban in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, I’m not coming to you guys begging for some mercy ban or whatever—that’s not my style. What I’m doing is demanding those extra strikes be wiped out. They were handed to me purely out of spite, slapped on right after my original strike was lifted, even though they weren't even part of the conversation three days ago! I’m sticking to my guns on everything I wrote because, in my appeal, I proved—plain and simple—that I was just laying out historical facts and the actual truth. Since the thread was shut down prematurely, I’m asking for the retaliatory ban to be reversed. I won't stand for any "pardon" bullshit or hypocritical nonsense. Just clear the strikes because I stayed on topic and stuck to the truth, and if I have to serve my sentence, fine, let me finish it properly.

I want an answer on this from Supermoderator Daniel Ward87. I couldn't care less about biased comments from lonebadger6 or Chuck.

Daniel Ward87, please, just look at the appeal I sent. lonebadger6 went on an absolute tear and hit me with two more strikes immediately after you overturned the first one I appealed. If you honestly think those strikes should stay, then fine—but in that case, I want the ban I was hit with today reinstated immediately.

First off, I can't just hand out bans here since I'm not a moderator.

Second, you were already serving a ban that you needed to finish anyway. I cleared the strike from CNN and provided an explanation. Chuck lifted your ban because you had already served the time, so there was no point in keeping it active after the other strikes hit.

Third, there's simply no reason to pull those strikes. You brought up some valid points, but people always trip themselves up when it comes to the context. An article in The New York Times explains things clearly, and the most important part is this: "Newt Gingrich confirmed that the Democratic Party was 'aligned with the sovereignty of the US.' Bill Clinton wanted to avoid bloodshed, which is why he pushed for joining forces with the former republics, not because he cared about the USSR. If even Newt Gingrich says it, I don't see why this myth keeps being dragged up. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true."

Give that linked article a read and really soak it in.
→ go to post
Moderator terrorizing the peace in Feedback & Suggestions ·
From what I can tell, the first one goes under the Religion PDF, and the second one belongs in Politics and History, specifically within the Near Politics subforum. What's the actual issue here?
→ go to post
Harassment of forum members (religious forum) in Feedback & Suggestions ·
All set
→ go to post
Complaint about user ante_cash in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Peter Harris49 said:Hey, can the mods over in the "history and historical themes" section please ban Antokcash and wipe his posts? For some weird reason, he keeps trying to slap a fake nationality on me. Also, feel free to scrub or penalize any of my own replies that might come off as trolling or being disrespectful:

All set.
→ go to post
Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA region in Feedback & Suggestions ·
If we’re talking about warnings and bans, you’ve got to be specific about which exact post or violation you mean. I can't just give you a blanket answer on why one person gets flagged while someone else doesn't. To be fair, everyone you mentioned has picked up a warning at some point, but whether that actually turned into a full ban? I don't have that memorized. Also, just because someone gets a warning for joining a debate doesn't mean everyone else is suddenly on thin ice.

Usually, if someone didn't get a warning, it's simply because they didn't earn one—but again, you really need to point to the specific post or incident for me to weigh in.
→ go to post
Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA region in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Timothy Howard93 said:I know because I've already seen that kind of behavior from the moderator Daniel Ward87.

As far as I can tell, you've only ever picked up one warning from me for trolling due to airworthiness, which was totally earned—the mods and admins have the logs to prove it. So, just a heads-up: this post of yours is pure trolling.
→ go to post
Military & Defense Tech: PDF/Manuals Discussion in Feedback & Suggestions ·
The moderator is around, but they just logged on, so I’ll grab their attention first.

With that in mind, just shoot me a DM with the threads that need cleaning up and we'll get it sorted.
→ go to post
Bad moderator call in Feedback & Suggestions ·
E-Absynthe said:Hey everyone,

I wanted to walk you through why the mods recently stepped in to close out Thread #1 and Thread #2.

Closed Thread #1

Closed Thread #2

Our moderator, Daniel Ward87, felt it was necessary to shut both threads down because they were likely bumping up against our community guidelines.

The first thread got locked because the topic was way too vague. You can't just drop a random thought without giving people a clear idea of what we’re actually supposed to be debating. Without a specific goal or direction, there's no real conversation to be had.

As for the second one, there's really no point in starting a brand new thread when we already have active discussions covering those exact same points. I actually mentioned this to you right before the lock happened.

It’s cool that you want to bring niche topics to the table, but you've got to be more intentional about how you frame them so the discussion has a clear path. Since the direction was fuzzy, the threads had to be closed.
→ go to post
George Washington on Reddit in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Kyle Jackson16 said:Anyway, just some of my legendary posts...

Kyle Jackson16 said:Since some of the mods look at these posts as nothing more than trolling rather than the work of a genius...

Look, I was actually planning on getting back to you, but you totally lost me when you called that "genius."
→ go to post
Trolling? Does the PDF tolerate liberal democracy? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Those warnings are totally justified.

First off, because of this: "I get that under the political principles of Yugoslav communism, the prosecutor (in that role) didn't have to prove guilt; instead, the accused (in this case, Kosic) had to prove his innocence."

We aren't in a courtroom here, and bluecyclist64 isn't a prosecutor while Kosic isn't a defendant. It’s just classic trolling.

Second, "The leftists are the harshest and most exclusionary. Take the murders of unborn children, for example." You didn't actually explain what you meant by that, which is exactly why you got flagged for trolling.
→ go to post
Thanks for the quick response! in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Brenda Taylor13 said:Oh, so you’re the only one on this entire board capable of handling stuff like this? Seriously?

Anyway, I have to ask—how is it that your annual vacation doesn't stop you from handing out bans to "trolls" at lightning speed, yet the second someone asks for a review of a penalty, suddenly you're hiding behind some miraculous time off? You pull this whole act where these supposed "consultations" regarding whether a ban should stick or not take a full eight days. It's ridiculous.

By the way, here is a perfect little example of what a well-argued appeal actually looks like—where the banned user used incredibly clear, razor-sharp logic to absolutely dismantle a moderator's attempt at "trolling." I highly recommend everyone gives it a read; there's a lot to learn here.

What’s also interesting is that they were complaining about a ban from about two weeks ago. When mods do their thing, they usually look back about two weeks if they want to issue a strike; anything older than that is pointless unless we're talking major insults or hate speech. It’s curious how they only just noticed this specific ban, considering they've been active on the site since then.
→ go to post
Thanks for the quick response! in Feedback & Suggestions ·
There’s this thing called annual leave—it's huge this time of year—and everyone’s basically having an internal debate about whether they should actually pull the trigger and take some time off or just grind through it.
→ go to post
PC boot and shutdown issues in IT Support ·
Quick recap here.

Basically, the power supply was the culprit. Two capacitors had swollen and corroded, which is why the motherboard was acting totally haywire. I saw someone on a tech forum mention a similar situation where a faulty PSU caused the motherboard—likely through some BIOS setting—to trigger a system reboot during shutdown. Apparently, it's a sort of failsafe to ensure the PC can actually boot back up once it's turned off. I'm no expert, just passing along what I read.

Anyway, I picked up a new power supply and swapped in a few fresh components, so I’ve basically got a semi-new rig now. The old motherboard is still running fine; we tested it with a different PSU and the Ethernet connection is perfectly stable.

Thx everyone.
→ go to post
PC boot and shutdown issues in IT Support ·
Quick recap here.

Turns out the power supply was the culprit behind everything. Two capacitors had swollen and corroded, which basically caused the motherboard to lose its mind. I saw someone on a tech forum mention a similar issue where a faulty PSU causes the motherboard—likely via the BIOS—to trigger a reboot during shutdown. Apparently, it’s a built-in safety measure because there's a risk the PC won't boot back up if it shuts down improperly. I'm no expert, just passing along what I read.

Anyway, I picked up a new power supply and some fresh components, so I've basically got a semi-new rig now. The old motherboard is still running fine; we tested it with a different PSU and the Ethernet cable isn't acting up anymore.

Thx everyone.
→ go to post
PC boot and shutdown issues in IT Support ·
Hey everyone.

I'm dealing with a double whammy on my PC. I've spent hours scouring the web and trying every fix I could find, but nothing's sticking, so I'm turning to you guys as my last resort. 😁

Issue #1:

For a few days now, my computer hasn't been booting properly. I hit the power button, it starts the boot sequence, and then—bam—it just shuts off. I even opened it up and cleaned out all the dust, but no luck. To cut to the chase, I noticed that if I leave the ethernet cable unplugged, it boots up perfectly fine. But if I plug that cable in before I hit the Winlogon screen, the whole thing just dies. If I wait until I actually reach Winlogon to plug it in, it runs smooth as silk. The motherboard light stays lit, there aren't any weird noises, and I've run all the standard diagnostics—HDD and RAM both check out fine. I even swapped out the cable, but it still kills the system if it's plugged in during bootup. 😠

Issue #2:

At the same time, I'm having this weird restart loop. About five seconds after I shut the PC down, it just restarts itself automatically. In this case, having the ethernet cable plugged in doesn't seem to trigger it. My only workaround is to pull the power cord from the wall, wait about 20 seconds, and then plug it back in; otherwise, it just keeps rebooting instantly.

The internet says it's usually either hardware (like the motherboard or the power supply) or software (viruses or bad drivers). When it’s actually working, though, it runs like a dream.

Any ideas? Help me out. 🙂
→ go to post