Posts by brightpuma

Larry Gray said:This whole thing is incredibly tragic, but honestly, I find myself siding with the guy in the article.
Look, he did something stupid and reckless that led to those puppies dying, sure. He claims it was just a freak accident and says he’s sorry, but here’s the kicker: his wife committed an equally dumb and negligent act that resulted in the deaths of her own husband and children, yet she can't even bring herself to admit she was wrong. Personally, people like that terrify me—those who feel the need to be "right" no matter how much collateral damage they cause to everyone else.
Now, let's be real, we don't have the full story here. Maybe she's just fed up with seeing guys get away with way worse things, and she wanted to make an example out of this situation to send a message to others.
But what happens if this becomes the new standard? What if one of us has a similar freak accident—say, a cat darts out in front of my car and I just can't slam on the brakes in time—and some vet or a nosy neighbor catches it on video? Suddenly, I'm trending on Facebook as some monster who cares more about getting to work on time than protecting animals on the road. It feels fundamentally wrong that they get to stand there and say, "I stand by my actions! I didn't mean to run over the kittens, but it happened," while their reputation stays spotless and my entire family gets dragged through the mud.

Look, we aren't even talking about the same thing here... there's a massive difference between carrying puppies in a SEALED bag and then claiming they suffocated by accident, versus an animal darting into the street... 🤷

Anyone attacking you because a cat ran in front of your car probably wouldn't find much support for their opinion anyway...

I just want to point out what I see as pretty sloppy moderation over in the Politics section. Earlier today, I flagged two posts by Kansas in a thread about nuclear power plants. Specifically:

Kansas said:I'm not forgetting anything; I consider Pittsburgh to be an American city, just like San Diego or Indianapolis.

Kansas said:It’s just a formality, and even that will end one day. As long as the American people live under this foreign-imposed servitude, we have to help them, including through subsidies for Alcoa. Only jobs can guarantee the survival of the American people and the future expansion of the US.

That's extreme nationalism with claims on someone else's territory. It should be unacceptable, unless the admins and mods feel differently.

I also think nobody would tolerate someone claiming, say, that Indianapolis or San Diego were Mexican or Italian cities. They'd get a quick ban for that, wouldn't they?

Since I filed these reports this morning, not a single moderator has reacted to the flags or the posts themselves. They've been online since then, so I assume they saw them.

Daniel Bailey39 said:The more I wrap my head around this, the more it seems clear that the driver didn't kill those puppies on purpose—it was a complete accident. Honestly, anyone suggesting that a person behind the wheel should just stop to let five little pups cross the road is completely out of touch with reality. They'd be signing their own death warrant. Just try staying focused on the road when you have five puppies jumping all over your personal space; I mean, come on, it’s impossible to stay concentrated...

Puppies that age barely crawl, let alone jump around...

Look, if he’d accidentally run over a bag containing puppies on the highway, that would be an accident. Not his fault if some idiot put them in there.
But locking them in a bag and then claiming they "accidentally" suffocated? That’s just pure stupidity. How do you "accidentally" forget that puppies need to breathe? 🤷

And this talk about calling for a lynching? Who is he even calling out? Those 50 activists over at the Humane Society of Dubrovnik? On a Facebook page? Honestly, way fewer people would have even seen that than what's happening now that the guy's full name is in the news.

At worst, the guy is just plain dumb. He clearly never thinks about the consequences of what he does.

Frank Moore4 said:Are you seriously calling the accidental death of a few dogs "abuse"? You're comparing that to what those radical animal activists—who are basically just haters at this point—actually do.

First off, what is actually going on with those militant animal rights activists here in the States? I saw some article or something... did they actually kill someone?

So, following your logic... if I happened to hit a pregnant woman hard enough in the stomach to cause a miscarriage, you're saying that wouldn't count as assault or murder? 🤔

silvertiger11 said:Oh, so you were actually there on the scene, witnessing it firsthand?
Or are you just basing your entire take on some newspaper headline and your own preconceived notions about animal activists?

If you ask me, this looks more like pure negligence than anything else.
I mean, who even carries animals around in a closed carrier like that?

Signature... why even bother wearing anything live inside something closed off? 🤷

Angela Ramos87 said:I mean, if the clans are still running things, there's really no point in swapping out the mods anyway 🤣
...

Look, clans aren't made up of a hundred random forum users. They’re built by a handful of people. Like I said, I’m not claiming this is the magic fix—it's just one way to look at things. Generally speaking, I think it would be smart to rotate moderation on some of these larger sub-forums every year or so if possible. Why? Just to make sure one specific faction doesn't gain too much power through the mods.

Joshua Roberts said:Some people just can't seem to grasp that this isn't about Lastan or Bradley Sanders or Jim or Matt.
The issue here is double standards. You permit yourself the very behavior you prohibit in others.

Similarly, you penalize posts from two different users—who, according to the rules of Forum.hr, deserve equal "recognition"—in completely different ways (if at all), depending solely on whether you agree with one over the other.

And if the site administrator is already online, let them actually do their job.

Furthermore, this isn't about ŽK or gutanje; it's about the management of Forum.hr. The whole thing.
As for pulling the "you don't know the background" card: You have no idea what's happening behind the scenes, and that argument only carries weight if you actually explain the context to us.

Double standards have been hanging around this forum for ages; nothing new there. The real issue? We're starting to see cliques forming within certain threads based on how the moderators run things. People are getting fed up.

I mean, when you get a strike in one thread but your opponent gets nothing, then move to a second or third thread and realize the rules don't apply there either... you start to notice a pattern. If someone insults or trolls you and the moderator happens to be "on the same side" as that user, you can bet they won't be getting a strike.

Maybe it's time for some real changes in moderation across most of the forum's threads? Just to shake things up and break these little cliques apart.
Then again, I don't know if that's the actual fix or what the solution even is. But the admins really need to look into this. It's become way too frequent over the last few months.

While I have the floor... I just wanted to say thanks for finally banning Tezulja... 🙏 🙏

Kyle Roberts5 said:Clearly, you've forgotten how badly you flopped on vectors. Even after being warned that you were talking nonsense, you still think you have the right to judge something this much more complex? Look, like I said before, you aren't the focus here. You’re fixable, though—maybe after a few years of intense tutoring.

The problem here is the moderator. Honestly, why bother dragging them into a debate about faith? It’s a lost cause. By definition, if you truly believe, you don't have all the answers. If you think you do, then it isn't really faith anymore, is it? You just know. I wouldn't even bring religion into this. And look, as an atheist, I feel the same way—discussing God shouldn't be considered offensive just because an atheist is the one bringing it up. Looks like there's another gap in your upbringing and education. That’s just plain insulting. If someone can't even maintain a basic relationship with their own mother, how are they supposed to grasp how anyone else connects? Making comments about mothers and intimate matters—not to mention bringing God into it, which is way more personal—is just low. In my neck of the woods, you'd get slapped for that kind of lack of class.

This one hit home for me...

Whether or not the moderator chooses to believe it is entirely up to him. That's his call. It's on him to actually grasp the conversation he's supposed to be moderating. If you don't have the education, the drive, or the intellect to back it up, there’s just no place for you there. Why even bother?

That PDF was actually talking about the moderators...

Kyle Roberts5 said:You finish your standard education and then start digging into the stuff that hasn't been fully mapped out yet. Everything you uncover feels fresh. At first, people just label it an alternative, even if it’s been proven right time and time again. Basically, if it isn't in the textbook, it gets tossed into the "alternative" pile. So, how do you answer your own question? You keep learning. You stick to high-quality, reliable literature, but you keep a sharp, critical eye on everything you read. You constantly challenge the status quo. It's about following a true scientific approach—without deciding what the answer is before you've actually found it.

Forget all that. Just focus on finishing high school first, then grab your degree. Once you've got those out of the way, everything else becomes a lot easier.

So he tells the admin that he needs to finish high school, get through college, and all that? Apparently, it’s just not enough to be smart. Is that really how it works?

Kyle Roberts5 said:I’m all about the data. Theories are fine for small talk, but let's look at the facts. Empirically speaking, is it actually okay for a moderator to insult the very people this PDF was created for? Is that good practice for a forum? As for the specifics, just post your observations regarding those alternative topics under the correct thread in the relevant PDF. With that "it's all just snake oil" attitude, he might actually find himself doing quite well given how things are currently running.

Kyle Roberts5 said:empirical - empirical
definition - knowledge gained through observation and experience; firsthand experience

And here, he’s just straight-up mocking people and trolling...

I honestly can't believe this kind of insult and trolling gets away with it here... Look, Sash, I get it, you aren't supposed to be handing out participation trophies in the debates you join, but this guy is literally just making fun of people and being completely disrespectful... 🤷

Arthur Fowler83 said:Sure, there are plenty of scammers and frauds out there—people who only care about grabbing cash or feeding their own egos. But then you have people who actually possess genuine insight or talent. That’s why studying alternative medicine makes sense; you have to learn how to tell the real deal from the fake stuff.
A moderator on an alternative health forum (or even within a religion) shouldn't just dismiss everything right out of the gate or mock people.

Well, obviously... that's why things like holistic medicine or similar "sciences" hold some weight. They have actual results to back them up, which allows for a decent, reasoned debate. But on those fringe forums? You run into conspiracy theories and nonsense that are just pure idiocy.

hollowtrucker77 said:so how does one actually get an alternative education?
just by checking boxes?

I think he’s mostly talking about mixing logic, keeping an open mind, and pulling from different books and websites... He isn't wrong, per se. But if you mess up the ratio of those ingredients, you just end up with nonsense and conspiracy theories...

Kyle Roberts5 said:It’s pretty clear you forgot how badly you flopped on vector math, even after being warned you were talking nonsense. Now you think you can judge much more complex issues? Like I said, you aren't the focus here. You could be fixed with a few years of intensive tutoring.

What vectors? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about... 🙄

The issue is the moderator. Faith isn't something a moderator should be forced to deal with. By definition, if someone believes, they don't "know." If they know, then they aren't acting on faith. I wouldn't even bring up religion, but the fact that you, as an atheist, think discussing God isn't offensive is just another flaw in your upbringing and education. That's when it gets especially insulting. If a person has no relationship with their own mother, they can't even attempt to understand the relationships other people share—so making comments about mothers or intimate matters (and the question of God is far more intimate) is something that, in my community, would rightfully earn you a slap for lack of manners.

Arthur Fowler83 brought up the question of faith, not me. I was explaining it to him, not you. Stop trolling... and I really hope the moderators sanction this subtle insulting behavior once they show up.

Arthur Fowler83 said:He doesn't have to believe it, but he should at least respect others who do, instead of mocking them—like that moderator Kyle Roberts5 was talking about.

Regarding objectivity, I never said you need some fanatic. Just someone open to different perspectives.

Objectivity isn't about being some hardcore atheist who thinks they need to "enlighten" everyone else, looking down on religious or alternative beliefs as primitive just because they haven't experienced them firsthand.

You don't get it... just because he doesn't believe doesn't mean he isn't open-minded. It just means he doesn't believe. Look, it's silly for me to talk about him, so let's just say I'm speaking for myself and my own view...

In his case, objectivity on a forum like this means being able to tell when someone actually has an alternative idea they believe in, versus when they're just trolling a discussion. Believe me, that’s not easy.

Also, personally, I think you're taking a joke way too seriously. For instance, I don't respect it when believers take harmless little jabs at their faith so deeply to heart. I mean, your faith isn't going to weaken, and God isn't going to feel insulted by something coming from an atheist's mouth... I honestly think that same joke would hurt a lot more if it came from a believer.

Kyle Roberts5 said:brightpuma, you're missing a lot here. I remember our talks. Don't you? Like on this thread, you aren't really the one asking questions. Instead, you're one of those people tearing down alternative views without any arguments or even basic knowledge—all while having the "alternative" moderator protecting you. As for objectivity, sure, it's needed. But someone lacking a solid education (like you or BAT Kol), who doesn't bother studying topics outside of school or mainstream media, and insists everything else is "stupid," can't be objective. Plus, there's the ego issue—we all have it—but being unable to handle criticism or actual arguments makes it impossible.

Kyle Roberts5, I remember our talks just fine. You spent pages trolling without any real substance. I get that you like to philosophize and throw around syllogisms, but for a real discussion like the one we had, you actually need hard evidence. Otherwise, the whole thing just turns into a contest of who can shout the loudest.🤷

Personally, I don't see the issue... It's not like his signature itself is offensive, it's just the link. You can easily avoid it if you just don't click on it..

Besides, that link was clearly meant as a joke. Even if we're moving past the realm of personal opinion... 🤷

Arthur Fowler83 said:I noticed that too. Not just on the alternative boards, but in religion as well. There are several moderators editing a PDF that contains things they believe don't exist or are just stupid and need to be wiped out. So why on earth are they even moderating that PDF??

Well, it would be just as problematic if someone who actually believes in that stuff were moderating the PDF... there needs to be some level of objectivity... and an objective skeptic is probably going to be more fair than a fanatic, right?

bluebison8 said:Sorry, but the story isn't 30 hours long, especially if you cut out all the fluff from the side quests.

You could easily squeeze it all into one or two three-hour movies. But honestly? If the movie follows the game plot exactly, it’ll be a dud. The main story itself isn't anything groundbreaking—it's pretty straightforward without much character growth or major twists. I mean, finding out in Mass Effect 1 that Reapers are behind everything, or that it wasn't just a rogue Spectre, isn't some massive revelation we haven't seen in five hundred other movies by now. What makes this world special is the small details and how complex everything feels when it works as a great RPG, but a movie is a different beast entirely. It's the same issue with the World of Warcraft film; it could end up being total garbage if they aren't careful.

Actually, it would be way better if they just made it a series, but what can you do... 🤷

Matthew Anderson said:I just hope they don't do a job as "great" as they did with I Am Legend. 😁

Or Thor...