Posts by brightpuma

So, you think they actually saved the forum from all those terrible jokes? Man, someone needs to give them a raise. 🙏 🙏

Nothing's worse than a bad joke..

urbangardener said:To get straight to the point, over in the diaspora sub-forum, there used to be two separate threads dedicated to Canada:

Employment in Canada

Emigration and living in Canada

And after about a thousand posts, those two threads were eventually locked, and they just opened one big master thread instead.

Now, look, I totally get why they did that, except for the fact that on this new main thread, you aren't even allowed to ask a single question regarding moving to Canada—whether it’s something silly like "is it expensive there?", something about paperwork, or just asking if any procedures have changed lately...

The "solution" they went with was basically pinning links to all the old Canada-related topics and pages in the top post, and now people are just expected to figure things out on their own.

I completely sympathize with the moderators, honestly, because people get so tired of seeing the same repetitive questions over and over, like "how much does stuff cost," how to immigrate, if you need a visa, or even just basic life stuff. And there really are certain questions that specific people keep asking constantly without even bothering to read the last twenty pages of the thread, where the answer has already been given at least ten times...

But you also have to realize that there are still ongoing issues that some individuals are facing, things that haven't been brought up yet or weren't handled well before.
Like, what happens if something changes this year regarding the Working holiday program rules and suddenly everyone has a ton of questions—but then you aren't allowed to ask them here.

My take is that they should probably allow a bit more breathing room for questions—just the regular, everyday kind—while still scrubbing all the nonsense about asylum or specific immigration tactics.

For example, right now I have absolutely no clue if my three-year-old can come with me on my Working holiday permit, or if they need their own separate one. The websites don't go into detail anywhere, and I'm not supposed to ask on the forum, even though there's a good chance someone has already called the Canadian Embassy and actually knows the answer...

I'm not looking for a ban or a report or anything like that, I'm just trying to politely point out an issue that more and more people are complaining about. If things stay exactly like this, well, I guess I just won't care either way...🙂

Thanks for understanding!

Look, if they let more questions through on that thread, how long before people take it over again with constant emigration questions? You have to sympathize with the mods. It's not their job to sit there 24/7 watching to see if someone asks about working under the table or some other stupid question that was answered ages ago.

The answers are all in the old threads and that sticky at the top. Personally, I don't see an issue with it.
Take your question about the WH, for instance. In a way, it's a bit silly. A Working holiday is primarily for young people who want to travel and work and see Canada (that's why it's called a Working holiday, right?). It's basically similar to work and travel in USA. That kind of program isn't really designed for people traveling with kids.

Jose White23 said:A lot of people got banned, so we had to scrub some stuff. If you actually saw it, maybe you wouldn't think this is fine 😁

Alright, I’ve got one more question.
How many times do we have to explain the "closing" of the gender studies department—or rather, its merger with departments in neighboring states—before bringing it up becomes straight-up trolling? 🤷
Seriously, every ten pages or so, someone drags out that same "ultimate proof" again. 🙄

Jose White23 said:What exactly was his point regarding the history curriculum and how it's interpreted? You have a section of his post on the main board—be a pal and explain it to me?

He’s pointing out the inconsistency in how people are reacting to school curricula. Everyone's up in arms about what gets taught in sex ed, but nobody seems to care about what's actually being taught in history class. That’s his core argument, and I just expanded on it.

Nice of you not to argue against your own warning.

Nothing to argue. I totally get why I got it.

I feel like I've seen this exact syntax on the general boards before. Let's cut to the chase:

Yeah, sure, you want us all to hate each other, insult one another, and turn this whole debate into a mindless circus. Maybe we can just have one single "Politics" subforum where the very first post is just a picture of two opposing soldiers. We could even run a poll on which one should be featured. Personally, I'm voting for some obscure local icons.

Look, I’ve been watching people troll this thread for days without any consequences. Honestly, I can't tell if some of them are genuinely brainwashed or just playing the part. Either way, there’s a mountain of unsanctioned posts here.

For starters, I think Keva got a warning for a single post when 90% of what he's written on this topic is pure trolling.
Then you have plenty of others in the same thread who aren't even trying to make a point; they're just digging their heels in and trolling relentlessly. And don't even get me started on the personal attacks.

So, please, help me understand why we're letting the discussion sink to this level? I thought the goal was to have a high-quality debate, not to watch someone constantly bring up Jovanovic's background, or see Razbijac constantly fighting ghosts of communism by attacking a book by Castrovka without even reading it—just labeling it "communist indoctrination" automatically. Is that not trolling? Are you kidding me?

Since it seems like I can actually get some answers in here, I have a question.

How is it that people get slapped with warnings so easily? Specifically, I got flagged by Peropopero—and honestly, I saw it coming—for posts that didn't even break any rules of debate. People are complaining about how a subject might be taught, but all I was trying to point out was the hypocrisy behind it. Yet, on the flip side, certain users, like Didaskalija, are allowed to troll a thread for days on end, throwing out ad hominem attacks in almost every single post without any consequences?

From what I've seen so far, it seems you'll get penalized for comparing the history curriculum and its interpretation (which is what Peropopero pointed out) to things involving public health. But apparently, it’s perfectly fine to troll without providing links or arguments, attack other users, or constantly imply they're lying and should be ashamed of themselves—all without proving a single thing. Is that really the message you want to send to the community? That this second type of behavior is what you actually want happening in your subforum?

So, following your logic, this guy obviously abuses animals (since that’s common knowledge, right?), yet somehow no competitors have called the cops on him, no animal rights groups have filed a single report, and on top of all that, he’s still considered a licensed instructor without anyone ever revoking or even questioning his credentials?

I don't know, seems weird to me. Either people are exaggerating when they talk about his "animal abuse," or there's a serious flaw in the system if such blatant cruelty is allowed to slide despite all the complaints. 🤷

bluerider2 said:Forgive me, but then how do you explain this—if you'll please look down toward the bottom, there are even more links provided.

I think the key word in her post is: herself. Which would mean they aren't the only ones training dogs. So both her point and your link can be true at the same time. 🤷 They aren't mutually exclusive.

Though, I'm with Ryan Cooper4 on this—I don't get why this is being dragged out. If a person is licensed, where's the issue? If you think what he's doing is illegal, then just report him. Because if that's the case, the law is on your side. 🤷

But, consider this: given the competition, someone would have reported him for illegal activity ages ago, and his license would've been pulled by now.

rustydrifter10 said:Sure, it is, but you can't overdo it, otherwise you cross the line into blatant advertising. There isn't a hard-and-fast rule—like a specific number of posts after which a recommendation turns into a promo—but that’s exactly why we have moderators to step in if they notice someone's entire focus seems to be circling around one thing. In your case, you mentioned that exact same hotel several times within a very short window (across all those recommendations you left there), and that can definitely be characterized as advertising, particularly if you've been bringing it up in other threads during the same timeframe too.

Mentioning a hotel is totally fine when it's relevant to the conversation, but you shouldn't do it too often or be too aggressive about it. Don't go looking for a precise number of how many times you're allowed to mention something because it doesn't exist; it mostly comes down to the moderator's intuition regarding when a topic has become "too much."

Telling the truth isn't slander, and using electric shock would indeed constitute abuse. Besides, it's against the rules here to glorify or encourage any activity that is illegal. I'm not intimately familiar with his specific methods, but I will look into it. I don't want this forum to be a place where anyone promoting such methods is given a platform.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much of that "illegal activity" stuff applies to service dogs—you know, police and military K9s. From what I can tell, even in the post she linked, she mentioned they work exclusively with official service animals, and even then, only with the owner's permission.

brisknomad6 said:Like, the training itself isn't the problem, it's more about the actual purpose behind it.

I'm totally against using them to tackle violent people during riots or whatever.

But, yeah, if they're helping out in search and rescue—like finding people who are lost or trapped under rubble after an earthquake or an avalanche? That's different. Those kinds of dogs literally save lives, and they rarely get hurt doing it.

So, I guess I'm all for it, as long as they’re being trained with positive reinforcement methods.

I mean, there are even dogs out there now that can detect cancer (I think there's one being trained for that right now in the US), or dogs that can sniff out high or low blood sugar in their owners, or even sense when someone is about to have an epileptic seizure.

And don't even get me started on service dogs that help the blind or people with special needs.

They are just wonderful and so incredibly useful, which is why we really need to treat them right—no harshness, no tasers, no hitting... just good stuff.

That all sounds great. Really. But I’m talking about military and police K9s. Just like with people, discipline isn't just important there—it’s everything.
That’s why they train them that way. To ensure they follow a command instantly, without question, no matter what's happening around them.

I remember this trainer telling me about one specific drill:
He’d take a dog—one that had already finished part of its training—to a busy intersection and tell it to stay. Then he’d walk away and watch from a distance where the dog couldn't see him. The whole point? To see if the dog would stay put, even if people were honking horns or yelling at it.

It sounds harsh, I know. But like I said, there's a reason for it. We're talking about a police dog that’s going to be sniffing for explosives later. When they find an IED, they need to be able to sit and stay right there until the handler gets to them, regardless of the chaos.

brisknomad6 said:Nah, I don't think that's really how it works. Even over here in the States, police and military K9 units are moving toward positive reinforcement methods. I mean, if some trainers around here are still stuck in the dark ages with old-school techniques, that’s a whole different conversation entirely. There was actually a bunch of stuff written about this on KLj, so if you're curious, maybe go check it out there.

Honestly, I don't know. I just know how things work around here, which is why I said what I said.

The point is, training police dogs—regardless of whether they use positive methods or not—should probably be classified as animal abuse.

I don't see eye to eye with Jeffrey Morales4 on this. But if, like she claims, collars are the only thing used for training service dogs, then we're talking about a completely different ballgame.

A neighbor of mine used to train K9 units for sniffing out drugs and explosives, and their methods are way more intense and aggressive than what you'd see with "regular" dogs. It’s pretty grim, honestly, but at the same time? It serves a purpose.

Matthew Anderson said:I’d guess it’s because you’ve got over 35 threads running on the main forums. People probably just got tired of seeing them everywhere. Just a guess.

I had the same thought, honestly. I didn't want to be the one to say it. But when two moderators both point it out? Yeah, I have to chime in too. Man, he really should've seen that coming.

I can only agree with my colleague here. She really nailed something I’ve been constantly wondering about myself, though I definitely wouldn't have put it quite that well.

Besides, I’ve brought this up on this forum more than a few times. When does genuine ignorance cross the line into trolling? How long is someone allowed to keep spouting nonsense without any actual arguments before they get sanctioned?

To be honest, I’ve also been following the thread on DZ o H. brak and noticed the exact same thing that steelskipper5 and urbantrucker5 pointed out. You have a couple of users participating in a discussion who basically spend over ten pages recycling the same repetitive claims—just phrased slightly differently each time. There’s zero argumentation, no supporting evidence, no links, no research, regardless of how many people ask them to back up their claims. Their version of "research" just boils down to their own personal experiences or maybe what people in their immediate circle say, and then they aggressively push that as if it's solid proof that they're right. 🤷

bluecyclist64 said:Then why don't you just say who you're talking about?

Because then you don't get enough attention, right? Not enough drama-queen vibes.😍

Nicholas King said:Hold on, you can't play it that way: make up your mind, is it a yes or a no?

Let's see here... Duka, Duke, Duki_28... ah, there we go, brightpuma—let's take a look at what's actually in the file: displays significant indecisiveness regarding their stances, shows a tendency toward using thought-emojis which might suggest some underlying internal struggles, uses a highly symbolic avatar that hints at a fear of death, potential suicidal ideation, or perhaps even the possibility of committing a mass shooting...

Conclusion: the forum user brightpuma is exhibiting psychotic behavior at a level of 82.5 psychoses. For now, more drastic measures aren't required, but I'm advising the moderators to remain vigilant and act if they hit the 100 psychoses threshold.

Next...

🤦

It’s not about me making a choice; it’s on you. If you end up just talking to yourself after everyone else leaves, at least you won't be bored. Then again, maybe they'll carry you off by then. 😉

Let's see... Duka, Duke, Duki_28... ah, there he is, brightpuma—let's check the file: shows indecisiveness in his views, a tendency to use thought-emojis suggesting possible internal struggles, has a very telling avatar that hints at a fear of death, possibly suicidal tendencies or even the potential for a mass shooting...

You know, you actually reminded me. By total coincidence, this is my avatar:

dustyranger64 said:ERM, I've got a feeling his comment is actually talking about those painful bumps in the groin area along with some nasty discharge.
What exactly are we claiming isn't enough for an informed layperson to "diagnose" a real health issue? Seriously? I mean, come on!

Wait, what exactly are we talking about here? I mean, looking at this whole forum, the scope is just massive!

Look, obviously calling someone a psychopath or mentally ill is an insult. Period.
So, what actually counts as an insult worthy of a red card these days? Like, if someone just tells another person, "Hey, maybe you should go talk to a psychologist for a bit," does that really cross the line? Is that even worth a penalty?
Did I get you wrong? Feel free to set me straight on that first part of the quote, too. Honestly, looking at this thread, it’s not exactly clear where you guys are pulling all these mental health diagnoses from. Like, what's actually triggering this whole thing?

There’s another issue we have to deal with here—hypersensitivity. It's a real thing.
So, apparently, every single sentence on this forum that uses words like "problem" or "issue" is now being treated as some kind of medical diagnosis. Honestly? Total nonsense. Just complete nonsense.

Fair enough. But when you start labeling someone as "sick" or whatever just because of how they phrase things, that crosses the line into an insult. He could have easily just said he thought there was an issue and called it a day. Instead, he’s been going on for a while now about how this person is mentally ill and needs to be removed... 🙄

Eric Gray2 said:Right. But if you aren't supposed to diagnose people, then why even label them at all?
The term "psychopath" is a psychiatric diagnosis—regardless of how much people try to water it down these days.

But look, if someone is constantly posting on a forum about painful sores in their private areas and dealing with infections—especially when they admit to being highly promiscuous and not using protection—you’d tell them they need to see a specialist immediately. In that case, it’s pretty obvious that this person is clearly mentally ill too.

Why would you tell one person to go see a doctor, but tell another that they are, plain and simple, undoubtedly sick? 😕

even though, I agree, we aren't doctors and this isn't a medical clinic.

See, this is a perfect example of when using a word like "undoubtedly" actually makes sense.
Even a dermatologist wouldn't dream of diagnosing someone or prescribing medication based solely on an internet forum. So how on earth does it make sense for a layperson in the field of mental health to do exactly that?

It's just that, even for a reasonably informed layperson, it's clear there is a health issue here.

Based on what diagnostic tools did you reach that conclusion? Where are the test results?
Man, hospitals could save a fortune if they didn't have to buy expensive psych diagnostic tools, tests, and manuals, since it's apparently obvious—even to amateurs—that pathology can be diagnosed just by reading forum posts.☕

No one without a degree in psychology or psychiatry has the right to hand out diagnoses like that, especially without proper clinical assessment. Forum posts—no matter how indicative they seem or how "obvious" they might look to a layman—simply aren't diagnostic evidence. This kind of forum "diagnosing," even if it's written with (undoubtedly ☕ ) the best intentions and total seriousness, is just as unprofessional, quackish, and trolling as telling someone, "Hey, go get help."

Yet, it seems this type of insult goes completely unpunished. 🤷

cosmicskipper39 said:Hey ambardriver17, why don't you just head over to the women's forum? Maybe you can actually act like a man for once and stop reporting every single tiny, meaningless thing like this one. 🙂

Or go talk football... Or maybe the NBA. There are plenty of other subforums out there where you can vent. 😬

lonetrucker4 said:Take a second to think about that sentence. A forum user—who probably knows less about this than I do—is acting all condescending, trying to speak on behalf of everyone who actually understands the field. Shouldn't we stop and ask if there's even any basis for a claim like that? It implies that because I'm involved in this, I don't know what I'm talking about. As if all those experts discussing the "energy transition," the "energy revolution," the "hydrogen economy," or the "European super grid" don't grasp the fundamentals.

My point was mainly about people managing the EES, not the folks producing the power. Honestly, the part about generating electricity from renewables paired with reversible hydro plants? I don't have much to complain about there.
What I was getting at is that anyone handling the EES would lose their mind if they suddenly had a hundred generators in an area that usually only handles ten. And if just a few of them slip out of sync—say, hitting 49.5 or 50.5 Hz instead of 50—the whole system starts to oscillate. Nobody wants that.

The European super grid sounds great in theory, but there’s a reason it isn't a reality yet. Besides, if I remember correctly, Eastern Europe isn't synchronized with the West (except for parts of Ukraine), so designing a continental-scale grid capable of handling those massive flows is a nightmare. Even current grids in most of Western Europe are struggling; we've built newer, more powerful plants where old ones used to be, but we haven't upgraded the transmission lines to match.

I honestly don't get why you're complaining, especially since I've been following this whole thread. The guy made it pretty clear: this is PZ, where we expect actual arguments, data, research, links, and stuff like that. But you kept dropping these opinions based on nothing but your own views, then acted surprised when you got flagged for trolling. 🤷
Damn, I interpreted those statements of yours as condescending and trollish too. If you aren't going to back things up with logic, saying stuff like "if you get it, you get it" is just trolling. 🤷

Look, some of the things you're saying about alternative or supplemental energy sources just don't hold water. Anyone working in the field would tell you that. For instance, you can't run the EES solely on solar panels and wind turbines. You need a conventional plant as a base—meaning gas, nuclear, or maybe a large hydro plant. From what I gathered in this debate, you wouldn't even touch gas, hydro, or nuclear. 🤷

As for casualharbor9, there's actually a bit of history between him and the PZ moderators (not just shadoworca3). Also, if someone edits their post after getting flagged, they totally earned that warning... I don't see what the issue is here. 🤷