Posts by bluecyclist64

analogviper9 said:Your social circle has simply adopted profanity as a standard way of speaking. But just because something becomes habitual doesn't mean it's actually "normal."

Would you actually feel comfortable—or respected, for that matter—if a cashier at your local grocery store barked, "What the hell do you want?" instead of a polite, "How can I help you?"
My social circle uses profanity too, but certainly not in every single sentence.
There is a massive difference between someone venting their frustration in a moment of anger and someone who talks like a sailor every time they open their mouth.

Swearing is often a sign of helplessness or uncontrolled rage; so, frankly, if someone is dropping F-bombs constantly without any provocation, they clearly have some internal issues to work through.

That bolded statement is complete nonsense and lacks any logical foundation.

As for me, your rambling about how swearing indicates weakness and anger is nothing more than empty noise. 😛

velvetstag5 said:wearing a blue shirt...

it’s as if someone else is breathing for me...🤔

Just walk away... 🤣
🙂

I’ll leave nothing behind but rosemary, snow, and the reeds. 👍

analogviper9 said:What does any of what you wrote have to do with anything? 🤔

Aside from the fact that you seem to have taken offense personally... 🕺

Relying on profanity is basically just a sign of laziness... 😛

Besides, when someone starts cursing and attacking society, people usually see it as a direct "attack on someone," which—let's be real—is usually exactly what it is. So, I fail to see why anyone would choose to constantly attack others if they could find a better way to phrase things. Does that make sense?

No, it certainly doesn't make more sense. In my circles, nobody views a swear word as an attack unless it's being used as a direct insult, and even then, it’s incredibly rare.

I honestly wouldn't want to know what kind of sanitized, bubble-wrapped society you come from. Probably some group of hillbillies or extreme fundamentalists?🤔

Is it truly considered "laziness" to say: "Go screw a mad horse with a bloody dick on your mother's grave"?

But I suppose I'm missing the point here... 🤷

Intermezzo, Vivian — you two still with us? 🤣

Michael Gonzalez77 said:The "Idea of Man" is essentially a genetic embryo containing all phylogenetic stages in a latent sense. However, its actual development starts at a rudimentary level. In this context, humanity has been on Earth for 5 million years, and our progression from then until now involves evolving toward the highest dimensions of existence, while also experiencing a curious "fall" back into the initial dimension where we currently reside. Before we developed multi-dimensionally—before consciousness crystallized for perspective-driven growth—humanity branched out in four directions. Three of those paths were non-perspective, including modern primates, which never reached the point of acquiring the specific energetic characteristics humans possess today. We gained those through multidimensional evolution (specifically through the three-layered astral body and an energetic structure referred to as the Soul—not to be confused with the aspect translated as Atma, which encompasses both organic and inorganic worlds, nor the light body which facilitates unrestrained creativity). So, man didn't evolve from monkeys; rather, humanity is the natural flowering of cosmic evolution. We carry the entire phylogenesis of material living beings within us, embodying the full experience of the cosmos regarding the development of material life. This evolution didn't just play out on Earth moving from inorganic to organic as the Darwinian hypothesis suggests; instead, this development unfolded within a cosmic context over eons and eons (what we perceive as infinite time), starting from the accidental emergence of matter and leading up to the appearance of beings with crystallized or complete consciousness. This applies to the "Idea of Man" and other advanced cosmic civilizations, whose shared developmental hallmark is a Collective Consciousness. Anything below that is merely preparation for creating that collective awareness—though in humans, due to free will and the capacity for creative growth, we see the rare phenomenon of developing flawed mindsets and practical self-sabotage.

The Soul is one. Fundamentally, there is no such thing as "soul migration." That’s just an illusion of separation caused by the weight of accumulated impressions—the idea that the Soul is this, or that, or a stone, a plant, an insect, a fish, a bird, an animal, or a human. What looks like "migration" is actually just the assimilation of a new physical medium driven by existing energy and the mental envelope where stored impressions exist, pushing to manifest and exhaust themselves.

If you’re going to quote someone, even if what they say is utter nonsense, the least you could do is provide a source.

Not everyone can spot the auras and authors like you can, oh enlightened master...😒

Chris Myers said:Do you actually buy this?

I’m not merely offering an opinion here; I am stating what I know to be true based on my own lived experiences.

analogviper9 said:There is definitely something off about those types—it’s almost as if they lack the vocabulary to express what they’re actually feeling or wanting, or perhaps they feel somehow inferior if they aren't using swear words to command attention.

Personally, I find being in that kind of environment incredibly uncomfortable, so I make a point to steer clear of them whenever possible.

Now, don't get me wrong—I’ll let a curse word slip myself if I’m absolutely livid, feeling totally helpless, or stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic, but I am fully aware that it sounds unrefined. I try to avoid swearing as much as I possibly can.

I’ll say it again: I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with your logic. How can you possibly claim that I lack the ability to express myself just because I occasionally use profanity? To be honest, I actually enjoy it. When I was teaching back in my school days, I certainly didn't let those words slip while I was standing in front of the students, but I certainly wasn't afraid to use them when I was in the faculty lounge with the other teachers.
I fail to see why I should feel any sense of inferiority. Where on earth are you getting those ideas from?

I find myself increasingly uncomfortable in circles like that, so I make a conscious effort to steer clear of them whenever possible.

Fair enough—it’s your call. At the end of the day, you have every right to handle things your way.

I have to admit, I find myself slipping up and letting a curse word fly from time to time too—usually when I’m feeling particularly frustrated, helpless, or stuck behind some idiot in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the I-95. It’s an instinctive reaction, but I am acutely aware that it sounds unrefined. I make a conscious effort to avoid swearing whenever possible.

And why exactly do you go out of your way to avoid profanity? Is it because that’s how you were raised—taught that such language is somehow inherently vulgar or beneath you?
So, if society had decided to wrap a chain around my neck, would I truly want to go around trying to shackle everyone else too? Would that actually make things easier for me? It’s an interesting question, though a rather grim one. I find myself reflecting on how much effort we expend trying to force others into the same narrow molds that confine us. There was a time, years ago, when I worked at a firm in Chicago—one of those old-school, rigid environments where every movement was monitored—and I remember feeling this intense, almost irrational urge to see my colleagues struggle just as I was. It wasn't out of malice, exactly, but more from a weary sense of perceived fairness. If I have to carry this weight, why should they get to walk free? But experience has a way of tempering that impulse. Realizing that shackling others doesn't actually lighten your own load is a hard-won lesson. In the end, dragging someone else down into the mud doesn't make the climb any easier; it just makes the path more crowded. To answer the question: no, I don't think I would. Adding more chains to the pile doesn't provide relief; it only increases the chaos.

analogviper9 said:A swear word isn't the conversation itself; it’s just where the conversation hits a dead end.
To me, swearing is a blatant sign of weakness—it shows an utter inability to articulate exactly what a person is feeling.

When someone truly possesses a rich vocabulary, they express *exactly* what is bothering them, rather than using a vulgarity as some sort of crude defensive shield.

In short, relying on profanity is a remarkably shallow way to communicate. ☕

It’s just absolute chaos, squared.
I personally find that profanity and certain "colorful" language serve to enrich my vocabulary and sharpen my expression. I honestly fail to see how anyone could claim that swearing functions as some sort of psychological defense mechanism.

By the way, what exactly is your deal, handing out compliments like that to us common folks? What are you, some kind of linguist? A psychologist? Or just a saint?

Andrew Doyle said:Personally, I believe that sexual connotations and being eloquent have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I know plenty of highly articulate individuals (if they weren't, they wouldn't be able to hold down certain professions, like working in major news networks, for instance), yet there isn't a single topic that can't be instantly pivoted into something involving sex. Granted, I also know people who are just a bit more frustrated in that area of their lives, so they steer every conversation exclusively in that direction. But those people aren't witty or interesting; they’re just frankly pathetic.
As for profanity—I've noticed that the more intelligent someone is, the better they are at crafting clever, original curses. In fact, it's precisely through those specific swear words that they capture the true essence of what they are describing. That doesn't mean they lack "finer" vocabulary; quite the opposite.
The only real factor is knowing where and with whom you use them. For example, if you are teaching a class in an American public school and giving kids a passionate lecture about duty and honor, you would certainly choose a more appropriate vocabulary. But if you're discussing that exact same topic with a friend or a partner, then it is completely acceptable to use much more colorful language to describe the absolute misery of life.

Thank God someone finally gets it! 👍
I actually quite enjoy swearing, and nothing satisfies me more than when someone on a forum accuses me of using it to compensate for a meager vocabulary... 🤣
And here I am, a writer, a poet, and a translator... 😵

While I don't feel the need to constantly force sexual allusions into everything, when I do, I do it with style. Constantly twisting every single topic toward sex is just exhausting and dull.

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:You guys just don't get it. Serpieri’s Druuna is easily the most erotic and unmatched masterpiece out there 🧐😁

For me, honestly, it is far more vulgar to insert an absolutely unnecessary hyphen into a sentence than it is to drop an F-bomb or a dirty word. 🤷

Pikova, thanks for making sure she finally got what was coming to her.

Rest in peace, my friend.

It is difficult to argue that the deliberate spread of disinformation should be categorized under the umbrella of free speech.
True freedom of expression shouldn't include the right to peddle falsehoods designed to harm others.

What’s the word on our progress?

Brenda Gonzalez12 said:Why such a huge reaction??? 🤔 You weren't even personally called out, and you didn't say anything wrong in the post you shared. If anything, you actually showed an alternative way of eating that worked wonders for you!
Now, if you had written, "this kind of diet cures (for example) HIV," and then added, "I have five testimonials proving it works, and if you follow this diet, you'll be cured. By the way, you can buy my cookbook via DM"—well, *that* would be practicing medicine without a license and a whole lot of other trouble.
But honestly, that's exactly what some people here do all the time—offering things with zero proof, zero results, and nothing but third-hand anecdotes. That's what this was about. It's an Alternative lifestyle, sure, but it's not charlatanism. And I stand by that!

I support you too, just as any decent forum member should support someone standing against the spread of (often harmful) misinformation.

I honestly don't understand where this idea comes from—that everyone should have the right to peddle fabrications as if they were facts. If anyone views democracy and freedom of speech that way, I can only say they’ve completely missed the mark.

Basically, some "alternative" enthusiast invokes their personal freedom to justify making fools out of this exhausted public. It's no different than me stealing my neighbor's chicken, him suing me for theft, and me claiming my fundamental human right to sue him back just because he’s an honest man who doesn't steal chickens.

Nobody has the right to spread harmful disinformation; you all really need to get that through your heads.

Gary Cox2 said:Maybe you’d actually bother posting or asking questions over on Alternative if the vibe wasn't so toxic and there wasn't some resident troll constantly breathing down everyone's necks..

Maybe I have a reason, maybe I'm bothering someone.

Please, tell me—how exactly does Pero Pero, who runs out to stare at the sun right after eating some raw food, threaten you or anyone else on this planet?

Actually, don't bother. No apologies needed... I just stated an opinion. Any more circling back or going in loops is just clogging up the thread for nothing..

Look, I honestly couldn't care less whether Pero Pero ends up sabotaging himself through sheer ignorance or a closed mind.
What bothers me is when some young, inexperienced kid reads the kind of nonsense being recommended here and completely wrecks their life because of it. That little guy, Ivo Ivić, needs to be able to hold down a job and pay his taxes to the government so that I actually have some money to live on when I reach retirement—you follow?

If little Ivo Ivić follows the bad advice of some prominent poster on your sub-forum—thinking people can actually survive without eating anything at all—then he’ll end up broken, and there won't be any funds left for my pension. You get what I'm saying?

Actually, why am I even doing this— you follow? 🤦

EDIT: And one more thing. Elizabeth Jackson has a signature that is an outright lie, and it shouldn't be allowed:

What we call matter is actually energy, whose vibration has been lowered so that it becomes perceptible to the senses. Matter does not exist. Albert Einstein

This is just further evidence of the extent to which your sub-forum spreads lies and misinformation. This is why it should be much more strictly moderated, instead of driving away BAT kolo and replacing them with vidoviti Milan.

Elizabeth Jackson said:Nice and northernpilot2, thank you both for taking the time to respond.

northernpilot2, I find myself agreeing with your assessment. It feels like there's an attempt here to resolve this using the path of least resistance—the most painless route possible—which, if my past experiences are any indication, doesn't exactly promise much in the way of actual improvement.
In my view, stricter moderation standards and a rigorous adherence to the forum rules should have been implemented a long time ago equally for everyone , which would have prevented a situation like this from ever arising in the first place.
I believe—and I suspect anyone watching this would agree—that moderation cannot, and should not, be handled so subjectively. One shouldn't moderate based on whether content fits a specific worldview, dismissing anything that doesn't align with their personal vision as mere idiocy, nonsense, and stupidity or simply moderating according to one's own personal convictions .
As long as things continue to be moderated this way, we aren't going to see any progress.

Just as a reminder, I’ve personally reached out to you directly twice before regarding the poor moderation surrounding the BAT kolo, where I also presented a literal mountain of evidence.
Some measures were taken, and there were some minor shifts for the better, but they were incredibly short-lived.
Before long, everything reverted to the old ways, and over time, the situation actually worsened. That’s evident from the examples I’ve provided, and I should point out that these are just the most recent instances; nearly 90% of them date back only within the last two or three months.
If necessary, I can certainly provide many more examples from earlier periods.
That is precisely why I’ve filed this complaint: because this has been dragging on forever and is a constant issue; it's really just a question of how intense it gets.
Believe me, I wouldn't dream of filing a complaint like this or wasting my time—or yours—digging through all these contentious posts (even though they aren't hard to find) if there wasn't a truly justified reason for doing so.

While I’d love to be wrong, if the situation regarding the moderators remains unchanged, I am quite certain that this "stricter moderation" will be applied only briefly before everything quickly slides right back to how it was.
And if that happens, what then? Are we just going to tighten the moderation criteria again? 😉

One more thing... when you speak about breaking the rules, you only seem to focus on crude insults (though Nice also mentions ad hominem attacks ). But what about the incessant spam, off-topic chatter, and those mocking, rude, and provocative posts posted by the very same group of members (led primarily by briskbison55 and Biljka112) that clearly aim to stir up arguments and disrupt the flow of discussion across various topics in the alternative section?
briskbison55 hasn't contributed a single constructive post regarding raw food, Chemtrails, or many other topics in the alternative section.
It’s a similar story with Biljka112—constant poking and provoking of those with differing views, just in a slightly more sophisticated and less overtly obnoxious way than briskbison55.
Are there truly no warnings or sanctions for spam, off-topic posting, provoking interlocutors, or bickering?
From what I can see in the forum rules (specifically points 4, 11, 12, 13, and 15), there absolutely should be.
And according to this as well.

?

Finally, I have one last question that is closely tied to this whole matter.
I only noticed this a bit later.
If I may ask—and I believe other users participating in the alternative section would also be interested—how did that conclude, and what were the specific decisions and actions taken by the super-moderators regarding that issue?

Even if this were true—which it isn't—Sedmica actually serves a vital purpose for the entire PDF.
Just as those graphic warnings about cancer on cigarette packs serve to alert people to the dangers of smoking, Sedmica’s posts act as a warning to naive users about the perils of following dangerous, unproven, alternative nonsense.

Freedom of speech isn't an absolute shield; when you start peddling advice that could legitimately jeopardize someone else's health, there should absolutely be consequences.

Morgan Brown4 said:It’s something we’ve all experienced. We read about a movie, see the posters, watch the trailers... and we build this specific expectation in our heads about what the experience will be like. Then we actually sit down to watch it, only to realize that what we anticipated bears almost no resemblance to the actual film (and I’m not even talking about whether the movie is "good" or "bad"—that’s a different conversation entirely).
Here are a few instances from my own history:

The Seventh Seal: they leaned so hard into that chess scene with Death that before I even saw it, I was convinced the entire movie was just two guys sitting around playing chess and discussing philosophy. Because of that, I actually hesitated to watch it for quite a while, only finally relenting because a college professor practically forced my hand. Fortunately, it wasn't at all what I had braced myself for. 😁

Blade Runner, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Abyss: there was a period in my life when I was diving deep into 70s and 80s sci-fi classics, and Alien and The Terminator were among the first I checked out. Based on those, I went into these subsequent films expecting heavy action and plenty of Horror. When I realized they were actually much more contemplative, slower-paced films, I felt a bit let down. 😁

Zardoz: I saw that infamous image of Sean Connery in his underwear holding a gun, and I expected some sort of high-adventure romp, maybe something along the lines of Mad Max or He-Man... In the end, it turned out to be quite subdued, and I honestly got the feeling it was something the Coen brothers might have directed.

Speaking of Mad Max... That franchise was always categorized in my mind as post-apocalyptic, so I was genuinely surprised when the first installment turned out to be a fairly standard film without any glaringly obvious sci-fi or wasteland elements. As a result, my memory of the first one is just that it was a bit dull, whereas the version everyone hates, Beyond Thunderdome, was actually great—nearly as good as The Road Warrior. 😁

You know, I was actually one of the first people captivated by Mad Max... And I avoided Zardoz specifically because of those famous briefs you seem to love so much... And I have to admit, the movie is such absolute garbage that even the underwear couldn't save it... 🤣

frozengull94 said:I don't watch Horror..
Because of that, I avoided watching the first Alien for a long time, along with others of its kind..
In fact, I think I caught the second one in the theater when it was released, simply because back then, you watched whatever was playing without being picky..
And the movie was a disaster for me. Just something to forget as quickly as possible.. And if the second one is that bad, then the first or the third certainly aren't any better..

Then, one lovely evening, an American network decided to air the first Alien.. What a revelation..
One of the best films ever made..
Since then, I've watched it so many times I could recite it from memory..

The other installments are significantly worse—the second is the worst—but they are still watchable..

This post probably belongs in the poll thread about the Alien films..I'm not sure why I didn't write this there...

It is likely just a precaution so we don't all end up ganging up on you at once, wouldn't you agree? 🤔

Richard Palmer90 said:Enough with the pathetic theatrics from Nica.
You’ve consistently championed nothing more than biased critiques and politically motivated attacks against NN. And now, let's hand those self-proclaimed "moral authorities" the reins to moderate. I'm sure they'll do a stellar job.
It only took one specific incident about six weeks ago to finally open my eyes. I realized just how little you actually care about digging into the heart of a problem or even objectively weighing the facts of a particular case—a case that, frankly, was easy enough to verify if one actually bothered to look. Instead, you simply pass judgment based on someone else's subjective opinion.
When the people at the very top of the pyramid are built that way, you really shouldn't be surprised by the shape of the entire structure. It’s a predictable outcome, isn't it? If the foundation is flawed and the leadership is fundamentally broken, the rest of the organization—no matter how much you try to polish the surface—will inevitably reflect those same systemic failures. You can't expect stability or integrity from a system when the architects themselves lack both.

Be a gentleman and clarify what’s written in bold, if it isn't too much trouble.
I honestly believe that adopting such an approach would make you come across as a far more competent interlocutor, if nothing else.

So, despite the fact that quite a few users have already voiced complaints regarding the (in)activity of the moderator nasmijanonebo, the site administration still refuses to remove her from the History subforum.

Let me reiterate: I understand it isn't easy to recruit competent moderators for every single niche board, but it would be far more honest to leave History without any moderation at all than to allow a biased moderator to run it with such a heavy hand.

Dishonesty shouldn't be a prerequisite for holding a moderator position—would we all agree on that?

Just look at what nebo says to the FBI user Saur:

There was some back-and-forth, but reasons weren't shared. You didn't get a warning because you insulted Aurelius; I merely mentioned that you were being insulting, specifically regarding his grandfather being a soldier and his other grandfather being a partisan. You received warnings due to sentences like the ones I quoted in my previous post, because this isn't the only instance where you openly complain that people aren't being treated even worse than they were in the past, suggesting there should have been more killings, and that there's still more to come.
Everything would be fine if you weren't inciting death against forum members. You opened this thread because of your own ban, not because of the topic itself, so you can only complain about the ban.You received the ban through accumulated warnings; only three of those were mine (you received others from different mods).
(By mistake, I selected "caps lock" as the reason for one warning (I just checked and it should have been a different reason, though it carries the same point value).

In short, it is a flat-out lie regarding the accumulation of warnings. nebo effectively cost Saur 300 points by citing hate speech. This is easy enough for anyone to verify, and once it is, I expect an apology to be issued to the user for the moderator's conduct.

Is this really the kind of moderation you need?

Furthermore, the moderator completely ignores reported posts where users are insulted for having left-leaning political views; here is an example:

Aurelius said:The correct archival code is US National Archives 1491. CIA

Read above...

Thankfully we have you, pushing the boundaries of idiocy into yet undiscovered territories of human internet stupidity. A fool, a fool, and nothing else... 🤦

Reported—ignored. Here is another instance from the same user:

Aurelius said:Wow, so you've concluded this report was written in the year 2355 just because it has that archival code, and you think you're so smart?🙂

Integrity seems to be a foreign concept to you, doesn't it? We'll step on your face if we have to, just don't you dare touch our Titus.🙂

Take a look at the sheer volume of mindless, empty posts cluttering this space—nothing but emojis or a few sarcastic words thrown together just to troll. And yet, the moderator, Sky, simply deleted them without any disciplinary action whatsoever.

Look at this:

hr1u00 said:This is a report from Josip Broz Tito regarding the "liquidation of enemies of the people between 1945 and 1951."
Basically, these figures come straight from the top of a criminal regime. @bluecyclist64, haha.

They also claim that 3.8 million people "passed through camps" during that same period.

All of this would be quite compelling if such a report actually existed—BUT IT DOESN'T. Instead, we have historical revisionists trying to smear the anti-fascist movement, and Sky seems all too happy to facilitate them.

I could write volumes on this, but I honestly don't see the point. I would strongly suggest that someone competent from the Politics section takes a deep dive into this topic. Furthermore, I recommend removing Sky from the History moderation team; her conduct is neither ethical nor grounded in scientific fact—not to mention the legal implications that might be overlooked for now.

Pay close attention to how often these phantom statistics are cited—claims of over half a million casualties after World War II, or supposed killings of innocent women and children that lack any evidence beyond hearsay. It’s all a desperate attempt to whitewash the crimes of the fascist regime.

It is truly disgraceful to see this forum sinking to the level of Stormfront.

By the way, I’ve archived and saved this post, so there is no sense in deleting it.

Look, Patrick Martin, the Film user is easily one of the most tolerant folks on this entire board.
The level of leeway the moderators give him would be absolutely unthinkable anywhere else on the site.
But honestly, I’m not complaining—I personally enjoy it, and so does a good portion of the community. 😉

Keep your chin up; it isn't game over, man, game over, game over!

Come on, people, let’s take a breath here.
Just because this brand of political correctness is sweeping through the decaying West doesn't mean we have to mimic their nonsense with such mindless devotion.

Regarding the post in question, there is objectively and realistically absolutely nothing in there that warrants even five points, let alone a 500-point penalty.

I don't follow the author's usual work closely enough to comment on their history, but this ruling is an absolute embarrassment for the site administration. It feels almost as if someone decided to make us look like fools in front of the neighbors, much like how Kolinda used to handle things... 🕺

God and I are invincible! 🙂

rowdytiger13 said:I shouldn't have to deal with massive trolling if I can just shut it down.
I’m done going back and forth. I stated clearly that I view most of your contributions to this thread as nothing more than trolling, which is why I won't be restoring them. The supermods have access to all deleted content, so if they believe I've overstepped... they can restore them themselves.

Come on, man. Have some backbone and actually quote the specific post you're disputing so everyone can judge for themselves whether it was trolling or not.
But you won't do that, will you? Perhaps because you're worried it might turn out you weren't right after all.

By the way, which supermod is handling the religion section? Because if it's Stryker or Lay's, then I'd very much like to request a statement from Nixon.

Regardless, I am requesting that my deleted post be made public—the one where I argued that heaven itself is inherently meaningless, and that the only true state of bliss is found through the cessation of existence, namely, death.

Let the community decide: was that trolling, or wasn't it?