Posts by Sarah Morgan2

I have to be honest and admit things are looking way better than they used to. Indirectly, the whole appeal actually had an impact on Microsoft, and now the student is trying harder to watch her tone in her communications, making her much more approachable 👍
Colbert is easily the best choice right now, and I think she’d be solid as a sub-moderator 👍
And honestly, regarding that issue you pointed out, I think it's a massive improvement compared to how things used to be handled. Especially since the moderator known as Didi stepped in immediately to warn both forum users—something that just didn't happen back in the day.

Sarah Garcia46 said:So, you claim to remember my text from nine months ago? Where have you been all this time? Did you need to go through a full pregnancy first?

Every single one of you acts as a sub-moderator here at Social Science; you just need to write two or three constructive lines once a week (or even daily) to identify and explain a phenomenon you agree or disagree with. You don't need to churn out eight long posts in a single day (she will know which ones I mean), just a few concise sentences will suffice. If you had distributed the energy you poured into this specific thread into your daily contributions to Social Science, I believe the platform would be much improved.

To paraphrase: "Don't ask what Social Science can do for you; ask what you can do for Social Science."

bluerider2 is a master at this, and no one will do it better than her. Provided she has your help.

Look, here’s my take. When I eventually land on the Social Science sub-forum—or when one of my kids takes over for me tomorrow—I just don't want to be greeted by a pack of rude forum trolls who kill any desire to read, let alone the drive to actually learn something new.
But if you want to prevent that, you and everyone else posting there need to step up.
There is also another issue. It's glaringly obvious you have some unresolved personal beef with Paul Price34, because every single critique you aim at Social Science seems to pivot back to her. Until you settle that within yourself, I don't think you can be an effective moderator. Honestly, it's starting to look like you might just abuse the position.

P.S.
🤣It turns out the brilliant LNP20 was right all along when they claimed that the only way to get anything constructive done is to separate Social Science from the linguists. 🤣

Sarah Garcia46 said:So, you claim to remember my text from nine months ago? Where have you been all this time? Did you need to go through a full pregnancy first?

Every single one of you acts as a sub-moderator here at Social Science; you just need to write two or three constructive lines once a week (or even daily) to identify and explain a phenomenon you agree or disagree with. You don't need to churn out eight long posts in a single day (she will know which ones I mean), just a few concise sentences will suffice. If you had distributed the energy you poured into this specific thread into your daily contributions to Social Science, I believe the platform would be much improved.

To paraphrase: "Don't ask what Social Science can do for you; ask what you can do for Social Science."

bluerider2 is a master at this, and no one will do it better than her. Provided she has your help.

Yeah, precisely. It took me a hell of a long time to finally arrive at this topic—even longer than nine months, actually. Regardless, good observation. 👍

Sarah Garcia46 said:So, you claim to remember my text from nine months ago? Where have you been all this time? Did you need to go through a full pregnancy first?

Every single one of you acts as a sub-moderator here at Social Science; you just need to write two or three constructive lines once a week (or even daily) to identify and explain a phenomenon you agree or disagree with. You don't need to churn out eight long posts in a single day (she will know which ones I mean), just a few concise sentences will suffice. If you had distributed the energy you poured into this specific thread into your daily contributions to Social Science, I believe the platform would be much improved.

To paraphrase: "Don't ask what Social Science can do for you; ask what you can do for Social Science."

bluerider2 is a master at this, and no one will do it better than her. Provided she has your help.

Nobody is a moderator of anything except themselves. If things worked exactly the way you're describing, we wouldn't even need moderators in the first place. Let's set aside the valley of tears and the noble new world for a moment and return to reality. ☕
However, if you insist that bluerider2 is a grandmaster, then all those previous posts you keep citing are clearly failing to bear fruit. 😕 Now, you're actually starting to worry me.

Look, jokes are always welcome, but let’s get back to the point at hand. Here are the candidates who have been put forward so far—none of whom (at least for now) have turned down the chance to serve as moderators for the Social Science forum:

Sarah Garcia46
Lila_sun
Colbert

Hmm, I noticed you were practically counting down the minutes for my little intermission where I took a crack at your spamming 😍 but don't go thinking I’m going to keep entertaining it 🙂
That said, purely for pedagogical reasons, I’ll offer one last glance at something you really should have mastered on this forum by now, given your age 😢

steelskipper5 said:I don't see what that has to do with this discussion—it’s not exactly clear to me, I guess.

Maybe you'll finally get it—once you've actually picked up enough life experience and some actual maturity—but there’s this specific level of consciousness where you can feel secure and happy without having to follow the herd. You know, just existing as a self-aware, free individual.

Maybe one day—if you ever actually manage to rack up enough experience, knowledge, and basic maturity—you'll finally realize that this whole "level of consciousness" thing is usually just New Age garbage.
Maybe you'll finally realize that people like this—well, I guess you might actually get it eventually. Look, let’s just call it what it is—an ad hominem attack. It's the oldest trick in the book when someone runs out of actual arguments. Instead of tackling the point I made—you know, the actual substance of the discussion—they decide to just go after me personally. It's lazy, honestly. If you can't beat the logic, just try to bruise the ego, right? Typical. These outbursts are just killing any chance of a constructive discussion—honestly, it's happening here and it's happening over on the Social Science boards too.

Don't get me wrong—I'm not out here judging clans or trying to dismiss why you feel the need for them. I get it, really. Development has to start somewhere, and if that means sticking to a clan-based approach for now, fine. But let's be real—that kind of structure isn't going to be the final destination for actual progress.

Mmm, those projections are looking pretty tasty.

P.S.—since I’ve noticed you clearly have this massive need to jump into the discussion—even though, let's be honest, 99% of the time you're just here to spam—

Who's talking about what... 🤣

I’m going to take this opportunity—since I’m actually posting here—to give you a little lesson on something you said to Jerry Roberts15 in one of your previous posts. You actually asked him for his psychoanalyst credentials just because he pointed out some nervousness in certain wannabe linguists. Look, steelskipper5, you don't need a fancy degree to diagnose someone being nervous. Obviously, logically speaking, you've totally confused neurosis with mere nervousness—but then again, maybe for a future linguist, that's all just a few insignificant letters anyway. 😍

Look, I’m not going to use this as an excuse to nitpick your little "typos" or whatever. I just want to be clear—I know exactly what I said, and I really don't feel like getting bogged down in some long-winded explanation here. Honestly, if I did go off-topic even slightly, you’d probably just jump down my throat and claim I was spamming anyway.

Look, maybe I’m crazy—but I’m definitely not an idiot.

Jean Piaget is New Age? 🤣 🤣 😂 🙏

steelskipper5 said:I don't see what that has to do with this discussion—it’s not exactly clear to me, I guess.

Maybe you'll finally get it—once you've actually picked up enough life experience and some actual maturity—but there’s this specific level of consciousness where you can feel secure and happy without having to follow the herd. You know, just existing as a self-aware, free individual.

Maybe one day—if you ever actually manage to rack up enough experience, knowledge, and basic maturity—you'll finally realize that this whole "level of consciousness" thing is usually just New Age garbage.
Maybe you'll finally realize that people like this—well, I guess you might actually get it eventually. Look, let’s just call it what it is—an ad hominem attack. It's the oldest trick in the book when someone runs out of actual arguments. Instead of tackling the point I made—you know, the actual substance of the discussion—they decide to just go after me personally. It's lazy, honestly. If you can't beat the logic, just try to bruise the ego, right? Typical. These outbursts are just killing any chance of a constructive discussion—honestly, it's happening here and it's happening over on the Social Science boards too.

Don't get me wrong—I'm not out here judging clans or trying to dismiss why you feel the need for them. I get it, really. Development has to start somewhere, and if that means sticking to a clan-based approach for now, fine. But let's be real—that kind of structure isn't going to be the final destination for actual progress.

Mmm, those projections are looking pretty tasty.

P.S.—since I’ve noticed you clearly have this massive need to jump into the discussion—even though, let's be honest, 99% of the time you're just here to spam—

Who's talking about what... 🤣

I’m going to take this opportunity—since I’m actually posting here—to give you a little lesson on something you said to Jerry Roberts15 in one of your previous posts. You actually asked him for his psychoanalyst credentials just because he pointed out some nervousness in certain wannabe linguists. Look, steelskipper5, you don't need a fancy degree to diagnose someone being nervous. Obviously, logically speaking, you've totally confused neurosis with mere nervousness—but then again, maybe for a future linguist, that's all just a few insignificant letters anyway. 😍

Look, I’m not going to use this as an excuse to nitpick your little "typos" or whatever. I just want to be clear—I know exactly what I said, and I really don't feel like getting bogged down in some long-winded explanation here. Honestly, if I did go off-topic even slightly, you’d probably just jump down my throat and claim I was spamming anyway.

Look, maybe I’m crazy—but I’m definitely not an idiot.

I respect the confidence 👍 but that’s it for my little detour; if you truly want me to devote myself to you as much as you clearly crave, feel free to send me a PM; honestly, I haven't turned anyone down yet, regardless of what they wanted to tell me 👍

steelskipper5 said:Honestly, it’s kind of cute seeing all this mutual support and constant ego-stroking happening within this loud little clique of bullies.

oh steelskipper5, 😍 You won't believe this, but people actually can support and value one another without needing to belong to some specific clique or tribe. Maybe once you've gathered enough life experience and reached a certain level of maturity, you'll realize that at a certain stage of consciousness, an individual can feel secure and happy without falling into mindless herd mentality. You can exist as a self-aware, free individual. Don't get me wrong—I'm not judging tribes, nor am I questioning your need for them. Growth has to start somewhere, but there is a ceiling to what tribalism can achieve.

P.S. Since I’ve noticed you have this undeniable urge to jump into every debate—even though 99% of the time you're just here to spam—I’m going to use this opportunity to teach you a little lesson based on something you told Jerry Roberts15 in a previous post. You actually asked him for a psychoanalyst's degree just because he pointed out some nervousness in certain wannabe linguists. Look, steelskipper5, you don't need a PhD to diagnose someone being nervous. Logically speaking, you clearly confused neurosis with simple nervousness, but then again, what's a few misplaced letters to a future linguist? 😍

Jerry Roberts15 said:Thanks, but unfortunately, other obligations this week—and honestly, for months to come—won't let me commit to even this little "engagement."

Besides that, I don't really have much experience with this kind of communication—or lack thereof. My past attempts haven't exactly been anything to write home about. 🤣Anyway, I’d be more than happy to nominate you too. It feels like you have this massive bird's-eye view of all the different topics and sub-forums around here. Plus, I get the feeling that—much like my colleague Sarah Garcia46—you actually know people deep down. You've got a knack for reading the room and seeing exactly how everyone operates.

Good luck! 👍

Alright, it's a shame you can't. I also want to thank you for the compliments and the suggestion. However, I won't say thanks for that part, because I truly have no interest in moderating or anything like that, under any circumstances, due to my own principles and reasons.

Jerry Roberts15 said:👍
Sarah Garcia46 + Colbert + maybe someone else from "other circles"

Plenty of work to go around, I reckon ☕

I’d actually nominate you too. Honestly, I hadn't realized until now just how much of a grip you have on the English language, or how much care and precision you put into helping the folks here who are actually interested in learning. 👍

Sarah Garcia46 said:

One specific individual is constantly disrupting the rhythm of the Social Science department. She is tolerated, and nobody dares to challenge her simply because she is unpleasant—or perhaps because she is supposedly a "distinguished professor."

I will say this again: the writings and influence of Paul Price34/Dementia are passing by here almost unnoticed. Can we truly move forward without clarity? Define his exact position and role within the Social Science department, and then you will have the key to everything. Until that is done, this entire discussion is futile.

Fortunately, on this specific sub-forum, it’s actually being noticed. From what I can see, he just got a red card. We need to realize this isn't the Social Science section—it's PZK. Naturally, outbursts like that aren't tolerated here, unlike over in Social Science where the moderator tends to look the other way whenever her friends or colleagues act up.

So, I actually have some pretty solid arguments to back up everything I've said here!
When I wrote last night that the veteran posters are basically checking out because they’ve lost any illusion that this Social Science subforum could ever be properly organized, I meant it. It’s a plain truth, and it’s made perfectly transparent by that quote from our respected moderator, LNP20.
I also suggested we could handle these issues with a bit more sophistication. But fine. In response to the trolling and insults being thrown at those of us who started this thread, we’re ready to push back. We won't stoop to their level, though. Instead, we'll just hold these provocateurs accountable by highlighting the exact same insults they’ve been spewing all over the Social Science forum. Let everyone see these blatant examples of their behavior. ☕

Also, following up on the "critique"—since most people here haven't bothered to speak up, including some members with much higher post counts 🙄, I am genuinely pleased to have the chance to quote one of the greatest intellectuals on this entire LNP20 forum. Despite having a signature that essentially screams "Down with the low tendentious arbitrary moderator! Down with the incompetent administrative trash!", they actually agreed to moderate the Philosophy subforum and enrich this community, 🙏 a person who, about a year and a half ago—alongside all his previous appeals—clearly stated what we are all repeating here:

"A proposal for a separate (sub-)subforum dedicated to Language is more than justified,
because in its current state, the Social Science subforum
(excluding History) serves as nothing more than a platform for a handful of forum
linguists to act superior, among whom even the moderator herself is included (just look at
the thread , which she
decided to shut down purely because the title used the word "origin" instead of "originn" [sic].
Following such behavior,
this rich field of Social Science is reduced strictly to linguistics,
and when it comes to topics falling outside that specific domain,
they often ignore the actual substance of what a person writes, focusing exclusively
on how it is written, hunting for the tiniest error just to label someone as stupid,
uneducated, or illiterate.

This creates a toxic environment where people feel uncomfortable posting
for fear that a simple typo might get them branded with the label of an illiterate
idiot or moron, which is exactly why there is such poor development or survival of any threads
that aren't colored by linguistic pretension. Naturally, this benefits the moderator
and her crowd, as their expertise maintains hegemony by undermining everything else
within the Social Science realm. That is precisely why a separate corner should be opened specifically for language questions, where the moderator and her ilk can vent their frustrations that they apparently can't find an outlet for in life outside
this forum, thereby sparing the rest of the users who want to avoid such
an approach, allowing them to enjoy a more relaxed atmosphere
for discussions in the "Social Science" subforum, separated from the purely
linguistic section.

P.S.
If anyone finishes reading this and decides to go hunting for a typo or a grammatical
error in these very lines—and if you actually find one—
I suggest you print it out and shove that piece of paper straight up your ass.
If you don't own a printer, manual transcription is also an option.

There. Thanks for your attention. I hope this transcript meets at least
the standards of dignity required by the local grammar purists.
Should it fall short, I instruct those individuals to consult
the instructions provided in the aforementioned "P.S." paragraph.

Link to the quoted text:

Since people here constantly harp on about how we never provide "concrete evidence" regarding the inappropriate behavior—specifically the insults that bluerider2 lets slide for her inner circle of friends and colleagues—I figured I’d step in. Since we've already pivoted to a more review-style tone, and I really wanted to spare everyone from wading through this entire swamp of blatant nastiness, I'll just drop a small, seemingly insignificant slice of the material here. I’m asking the moderators to weigh in: is this kind of thing actually allowed, or is this still not considered a "concrete example" enough for you? Fine then, you asked for it: 🙂

Henry Gray14 said:To put it bluntly without paraphrasing, she basically called it nonsense ☕

That’s exactly right—it’s just one of her more sophisticated ways of reacting after being warned. In the beginning, she used to write to our local legend, Professor Anić, calling him a fool, an idiot, and all sorts of things. She did the exact same thing to Professor Ladan, too, mind you! Even when Professor Ladan passed away—and I mean before his body was even cold—she couldn't help herself; she just had to lash out with insults. Luckily, bluerider2 actually stepped in and deleted it back then. Imagine that.

Paul Price34 said:I I'm still seeing maybe two, definitely three IPs here spread across five different nicknames. Honestly, it’s just... it's unbelievable, truly unbelievable. ☕ I mean, seriously, what even is this?! Is this some kind of pseudo-"linguistic" itch, or just a pre-game rush of fake "linguists"? I feel like I'm reading absolutely nothing over here—just total static. If people actually had something worth saying, they could probably condense their complaints into a few coherent points. I have no clue why this whole thread is even locked up like this in the first place. 🙄 Just leave bluerider2 and Abby alone, okay? Public venting spaces need to be allowed to exist somewhere.

I’m asking the moderators to sanction this user for an offensive post that completely trashes a discussion which, until now, actually stayed within the bounds of decent etiquette. What kind of behavior is it to show up here and resort solely to ad hominem attacks, using phrases like: menopausal itch, pre-coital outburst and things of that nature.
It’s perfectly clear to me that when someone lacks arguments, they resort to insults. That happens all the time, not just on this forum, but in everyday life with people who feel threatened by criticism. Still, there should be some limits. 😕
I would also like an explanation as to how an "ordinary" user can see my IP address, as well as those of other forum members. Specifically, the quoted user claims I still see two, maybe three IPs hiding behind five different nicknames. Since this now involves a breach of visitor privacy, I’m requesting a clear explanation of how a regular visitor can get access to my IP and manipulate it publicly like this? 😕
Of course, since the claim that multiple nicknames are operating from the same IP on this topic is a complete lie, I ask the administrators to clarify this. Regardless of our conclusion that those without arguments resort to insults, I still believe certain boundaries must exist. Thank you.

mistybison said:I am merely pointing out what happens when a strict moderator takes over a sub-forum. 😉 Typically, a group of users will complain about one or more specific members due to personal friction and demand that the moderator intervene on their behalf. When a moderator becomes strict, or a new strict moderator is appointed who penalizes everyone causing trouble, it usually leads to disappointment. The complaining users realize they only win partially, as they often find themselves penalized alongside those they personally dislike—or even alongside themselves. This triggers a new battle against the moderator for being "unjustifiably harsh," which once again floods the sub-forum with complaints. 😁

A second possibility is that users actually desire stricter moderation because they feel Social Science is moderated too leniently. 🙂 In any case, I believe it would be appropriate for the long-term, regular contributors who truly understand the dynamics of this sub-forum to weigh in. What we see here are mostly complaints from a handful of relatively new accounts with only about 50 posts each, and such grievances rarely carry much weight. 😉

You're right about that.

mistybison said:I am merely pointing out what happens when a strict moderator takes over a sub-forum. 😉 Typically, a group of users will complain about one or more specific members due to personal friction and demand that the moderator intervene on their behalf. When a moderator becomes strict, or a new strict moderator is appointed who penalizes everyone causing trouble, it usually leads to disappointment. The complaining users realize they only win partially, as they often find themselves penalized alongside those they personally dislike—or even alongside themselves. This triggers a new battle against the moderator for being "unjustifiably harsh," which once again floods the sub-forum with complaints. 😁

A second possibility is that users actually desire stricter moderation because they feel Social Science is moderated too leniently. 🙂 In any case, I believe it would be appropriate for the long-term, regular contributors who truly understand the dynamics of this sub-forum to weigh in. What we see here are mostly complaints from a handful of relatively new accounts with only about 50 posts each, and such grievances rarely carry much weight. 😉

Actually, you're wrong there. 😁 Some people don't post regularly or build up seniority precisely because the sub-forum is poorly managed, 😉 while others (myself included) prefer to just read, which makes the state of the forum even more irritating. If you look closer, there are complaints from several veterans on the Social Science board itself.

To me, this has devolved into pure lamentation. The fact remains: one moderator, no matter how good or bad, cannot manage such a demanding sub-forum alone. That's why appointing a co-moderator is necessary. If anyone actually wants to achieve something constructive, that's where the focus should be. These stories about "organized clone attacks," "personal grudges," "post counts," or whatever else are just distractions. They aren't constructive, they aren't relevant to the topic, and frankly, I'd say it's just people consciously dodging responsibility and the actual problems at hand.

mistybison said:On Social Science, it’s not just well-meaning learners showing up; we also deal with trolls and provocateurs of all stripes. These individuals don't just lack basic civility, they often lack any fundamental understanding of the topics they insist on debating as if they were experts. For instance, there is a certain "linguist" who regularly posts long essays about language that are riddled with errors and nonsense, even going so far as to claim, "not knowing grammar or spelling never stopped me from studying language." I doubt such a person would receive anything but ridicule from other participants on any American forum. Then there are the political bickering matches that frequently slide under the surface of seemingly innocent linguistic discussions. Nevertheless, these users are permitted to post until their behavior becomes truly unbearable. I believe you are unfairly accusing bluerider2 of bias. If she were stricter, or if a more stringent moderator were paired with her, the impact would be felt by EVERY participant on the sub-forum, not just those who bother specific members. Please keep that in mind. 😉

People from all walks of life drift onto any online forum; I don't see why you think Social Science should be some kind of exception. 😕 Why should someone be required to have foundational knowledge on a topic when, frankly, even the moderators often lack it? A participant disqualifies themselves through their own ignorance. If they violate the forum rules, then the moderator needs to step in. For God's sake, that's how every forum in the US works.

mistybison said:On Social Science, it’s not just well-meaning learners showing up; we also deal with trolls and provocateurs of all stripes. These individuals don't just lack basic civility, they often lack any fundamental understanding of the topics they insist on debating as if they were experts. For instance, there is a certain "linguist" who regularly posts long essays about language that are riddled with errors and nonsense, even going so far as to claim, "not knowing grammar or spelling never stopped me from studying language." I doubt such a person would receive anything but ridicule from other participants on any American forum. Then there are the political bickering matches that frequently slide under the surface of seemingly innocent linguistic discussions. Nevertheless, these users are permitted to post until their behavior becomes truly unbearable. I believe you are unfairly accusing bluerider2 of bias. If she were stricter, or if a more stringent moderator were paired with her, the impact would be felt by EVERY participant on the sub-forum, not just those who bother specific members. Please keep that in mind. 😉

That is exactly why the goal here is to select a co-moderator who treats everyone equally. That’s the whole point of this thread: to find a high-quality individual who won't be biased like the current moderator.

P.S. Regarding your comment about "unjustified complaints against bluerider2 and her bias"—I don't think it's right to dismiss them so lightly. Real people are lodging specific complaints here. If anything, I’d say you are the one unfairly refusing to acknowledge those grievances.

steelskipper5 said:Honestly, I’d say the biggest issue here is just the fact that those baseless attacks against Abyssus weren't wiped out when they should have been.

Yeah, look—she isn't exactly the most pleasant person to debate. Especially if you start trying to lecture her.
I mean, I'm not exactly a ray of sunshine myself—let's be real—but nobody has ever jumped down my throat quite like this before.

As for bringing in another sub-moderator? Why not? It could actually help things out.
Regarding all the complaints about Abyssus and how she acts—those quotes don't even count as proof against her. The way all these self-proclaimed "experts" are trashing her field is basically how society reacts to the natural science community if someone suddenly started rambling about math or physics. Except, in those cases, those topics usually end up over on Alternative anyway through some kind of emergency procedure.

By the way, I think Abyssus would actually make an excellent proposal for moderator. 😬
I've already seen her in action moderating, and honestly, I don't have any complaints.

Fine, any suggestion is welcome. 👍 Just so you know, I have my own grievances. Trinx (the moderator using her handle on another site) is a terrible moderator in my opinion, but I don't see the point in dragging in, rehashing, linking, or copying posts from another forum where there's also plenty of discontent. We are on the IMF right now, and we need to settle our issues here. In any case, I think it's good you spoke up because, despite your post being essentially an "apology" for Abyssus, we're aligned on 99% of things. 😉[/color][/color][/color][/color]

Sarah Garcia46 said:Nine months ago on the "Language Advisor," I published this reflection (April 11, 2008):

"This space should be a place where kindness, friendship, and solidarity are nurtured. We have young people coming here who need to see cooperation and goodwill modeled as a way of life. Should we not view the mistakes of the youth with sympathy, seeing them as mere stepping stones on the path to wisdom? Instead, we see the exact opposite—rudeness, discomfort, and arrogance. This creates an environment where people shy away from participating due to tactless interactions and aggressive, irrational ideas."

I remember reading that, but that appeal was completely ignored by the moderator, just like most others. 🙄

Given the current circumstances, I think Sarah Garcia46 is the best choice for a sub-moderator/linguist. In fact, she’s been warning us about the critical state of the Social Science sub-forum for quite some time (as her quote above shows). This proves that beyond her undeniable expertise, she possesses the character and the sensitivity required for an urgent resuscitation of Social Science.

That said, I won't stop looking for a high-quality sub-moderator who could also elevate other areas of Social Science. For now, we only have our fellow forum member Lila_sun.

Look, here’s the list of all 18 posters. Now why don't you tell us which one is whose clone? You keep insisting on this hypothesis, repeating it from post to post, which is just a sneaky way to insult everyone in this discussion and belittle the entire topic itself:

Sarah Morgan2
bluerider2
Jerry Roberts15
hollowtrucker77
Paul Price34
ironmarlin1
Thomas Stewart4
*roo*
Tyler Grant76
Jerry Garcia
Bradley Lopez12
Sarah Garcia46
redmarlin3
mistybison
Carol Nguyen63
Michelle Sanders72
Kenneth Peterson5
northerntiger

bluerider2 said:It feels like we're starting to lose our focus here, so if you'll allow me, I'd love to quickly summarize how things are currently shaping up. Because we've moved toward assuming this is all part of some perfectly synchronized group effort, those original complaints have been set aside in favor of putting together a list of candidates for the sub-moderator position. So far, the names on the list include:

• Sarah Garcia46
• Lila_sun
• Colbert
• Andrew Sanchez572
• LNP20

If I’ve accidentally overlooked anyone, please do feel free to jump in and let me know.

What are you even talking about? The whole point of this thread is to pick sub-moderators—that was the original and only intention, based on the consensus that your moderation has been lacking. btw, I see you're still clinging to your conspiracy theories. If you're going to insist on that so hard, why don't you actually present us with a breakdown of who among the users and the disgruntled lot are pointing out flaws in the Social Science sub-forum, and whose "clone" they supposedly are? Even though it's off-topic, I'm genuinely curious why you're so obsessed with it that it's clearly distracting you from this actual discussion.😂