Posts by bluecyclist64

And just like that, Baron Kmezimir Markkonen has been taken out. He wasn't finished off by five legions of Sardaukar, but rather by a lethal accumulation of five totalitarian, communist-style penalty points handed down by Zol Muad'dib Oštreid and the svizac Zelenokaderaš...😢

Why the dedicated thread?

Because it is high time we set the record straight on a few things.

To be blunt, I was slapped with a warning from Tasty Bytes for the following post, which has since been scrubbed:

Only an uneducated fool could possibly believe that Kim Kardashian wasn't named after a species of fish.

And this isn't a sanctuary for the uneducated. Take your attempts over at Alternative or go bother people on Twitter.

That specific post was actually a rebuttal to this one:

In my view, discarding a rigorous mathematical model in favor of a subpar one is essentially rejecting the scientific method itself, as I detailed below. The former was a legitimate academic inquiry; this current mess is merely me sharing my theory regarding the etymology of the "Karash River."

...which was posted by user teo1, who spends his time spouting absolute nonsense over on Grammar, trying to derive the name of the Karash River from precious metals based on some dubious "mathematical models."

So, I have to ask you, my dear administrators: why am I being penalized just for calling out a creature whose intellectual capacity is clearly matched only by his own incompetence?

The very same incompetent hack whom you’ve appointed as a moderator simply because there was a lack of qualified candidates had the audacity to claim that I hit my wife(?!)—of course, he faces zero repercussions, given his moderator status...

I am, quite frankly, livid.

This "big shot moderator" doesn't even accept private messages—though I don't see much point in warning him that such behavior is beneath contempt, do you?

I understand there might be a staffing crisis, but you really shouldn't feel compelled to promote every spineless, immoral piece of trash to a leadership position.

I’m holding out hope that Marko Perkkonen Tupson will perform that anthem about our fallen American heroes—the ones who were essentially wiped out by some mediocre, five-point bureaucratic failure from the old regime...🤣

Jonathan Wright2 said:I’ve been sitting here reflecting on the trajectory of this conversation, specifically looking back at posts 49, 50, and 51. It’s fascinating, in a rather grim way, how quickly the discourse shifts when you peel back the layers of superficiality. Looking at those specific entries, I am struck by the sheer repetition of certain arguments. It reminds me of a period back in my early thirties, working in corporate consulting in Chicago, where I spent endless hours in boardrooms listening to people repackage the same failing ideas as "innovative strategies." We see that same pattern here—a circular logic that refuses to acknowledge the reality of the situation. There is a distinct lack of nuance in the recent exchanges. One tends to expect a certain level of intellectual rigor when discussing matters of this magnitude, yet we find ourselves wading through the same tired rhetoric. It’s exhausting, really. You start out hoping for a deep dive into the mechanics of the issue, only to realize you're just watching the same actors perform the same predictable script. It makes one wonder if we are actually seeking truth, or if we are simply looking for a mirror that reflects our own preconceived notions back at us. Personally, I find the latter much more common than I care to admit. Moving forward, I hope we can move past these repetitive cycles and actually address the core of the matter with some semblance of clarity.

I’ve been pondering something lately: where exactly does the line get drawn between the participants of a discussion—specifically the original author of a thread—and the moderators? I'm curious to hear how everyone perceives that boundary.

It seems we have a situation where the moderator, Zoran Oštrić, goes through the motions of opening a discussion thread, only to immediately set ground rules that effectively stifle any debate that doesn't align perfectly with his own worldview. It’s a classic maneuver: inviting people to speak, yet preemptively silencing anyone who dares to offer a dissenting opinion. In my experience, when someone tries to police thought under the guise of "moderation," they aren't looking for a conversation—they're looking for an echo chamber.

How exactly is the relationship between a forum member and a moderator regulated when they happen to be the same individual?

Come on, give it a rest already. You're just being a lying troll.
Anyone else would have been asking you for a breakdown of the partials a long time ago, given how you are.
A liar.
b) uneducated
c) Rude.
d) Unintelligent.

John Palmer9 said:There is an old adage that I have found to be uncomfortably accurate over the years: "Give a man power and authority, and you will finally see who he truly is." It’s a sentiment that holds up regardless of how much time passes or how much the political landscape shifts. In my experience, true character isn't revealed when someone is struggling to make ends meet or navigating the constraints of everyday life; it's revealed when the guardrails are removed. When the leash is cut and they suddenly find themselves holding the reins of influence, the mask tends to slip. You start to see those darker impulses, the ego, and the capacity for corruption that were previously kept under wraps by necessity. It is a sobering thought, one that makes me increasingly cynical about those currently ascending the ranks of leadership in this country.
It’s all laid out perfectly clearly in that History PDF.
When someone decides to jump headfirst into the middle of a heated debate while simultaneously holding the title of moderator, it creates a fundamental conflict of interest. To me, it feels exactly like watching a professional football game where the referee decides mid-match that they’d rather lace up their cleats and join the play. You can't effectively call the fouls when you're busy trying to score the winning goal.

And this one is remarkably similar to you—only you aren't some Italian fascist skillfully masking a deep-seated devotion to Mussolini's "Mediterranean Empire."

To be honest, I’m finding this one a bit harder to stomach.

coppersailor28 said:It looks like Zoran Oštrić has been busy "moderating" again, if my observations are correct. He laid it all out clearly. Terminology for... Rome/Gypsies. I suppose I should add... Canadians.

It seems you were cut off mid-sentence. If you meant to ask "What if..." or "If you were...", please provide the rest of your thought. I am ready to continue the conversation once you complete the prompt.Linguistics.Then, perhaps, we would finally have some clarity on how things actually work.niggaThe single quotation mark isn't a standard part of the American literary lexicon, nor is it something you'll find sanctioned in our public discourse. Even if such an expression carries a derogatory undertone within our culture, there’s really no reason to give it any oxygen by bringing it up at all.

The same logic applies to that other matter—I’d strongly suggest steering clear of that particular expression. There is a much better way to phrase it if you actually care about being precise.

I honestly have no idea where you people are finding the evidence to support the claims made by the author of this PŽK thread.
"It seems we have reached a peculiar stage in this forum's evolution. Zoran Oštrić opens a discussion thread, yet simultaneously acts as a gatekeeper, effectively mandating that no one may engage in any debate that contradicts his personal worldview. It’s a rather stifling way to manage a community, wouldn't you agree? One expects a platform for discourse, not a controlled environment where dissent is treated as a violation of the rules."

Then there is the next obvious case—someone for whom words are a wasted currency. There is no point in trying to reason with them; their actions speak loudly enough on their own.

Adam Collins4 said:🤣

So, you actually want to engage in a debate with Oštrić? The man's entire strategy consists of draping himself in grandiloquent rhetoric and cherry-picking logical fallacies to stay afloat...

The moment you actually pin him down with solid arguments, or if he feels threatened, he immediately pivots to right-wing extremists or—as he so eloquently put it to me—"right-wing Catholic fanatics"...🤣

And there he goes on Politics, defending the nonsense and lies of someone like Puhovski regarding Operation Storm, because he lacks the backbone to face actual facts...

Apparently, that’s my fault for being a "right-wing Catholic fanatic." I’m just sitting here waiting for Lastan to come by and explain how I can be an atheist "Catholic fanatic" at the same time... quite the paradox, isn't it?...

And here is the icing on the cake: this guy who arrived in America as a kid and, through sheer raw talent, breezed straight into the Special Forces.🤣
Then he fought through every single day of the war until the very end.🤣
Then he went off to get an education, despite all odds.🤣
Then he built up a massive portion of this country through his own hard work, using nothing but his own two hands...🤣

Come on, you little trolls, go out and start living real lives. Maybe then old relics like Oštrić won't be able to get under your skin so easily.☕

Jerry Robinson56 said:Well, look at that—even the atheists are getting in on it. 🤔

It’s just business as usual.☕
He and his crowd will likely see their payouts a month before the Catholics do—just like those staunch secularists used to get their handouts right before the November 29th holidays...🤣

silentfalcon3 said:A group of people clearly suffering from a total lack of common sense has started trying to gaslight those of us who still value logic and independent thought.

Since they’ve made it their mission to harass us regular folks everywhere...🤣

Drew Price76 said:Honey, it sounds to me like you haven't experienced much actual intimacy. 🙂
Sudeći po tvom poznavanju matematike, kao da si još u osnovnoj školi.

Yeah, right. Just because you spent your high school years acting out doesn't mean you earned a PhD in human psychology...
🥳

Honestly, who cares?☕
But I suppose if he’s happy with his choices, let him be...🥳
Though, since we're being blunt here—if he starts acting up again, it won't be hard enough to just tell him to get lost, right?🤷

I swear, if they don't film a sequel featuring Thelma and Louis, I’m going to lose it.☕

Noah Miller6 said:Things were much better back when you and people like you held the moderator roles; everything today is just a complete disaster.

How exactly am I supposed to tone down my perception when the individual I mentioned at the very start of this thread refuses to show up with actual, direct evidence for the permanent ban she forced on me?

Look, Dave: you received a partial restriction, not a permanent ban.
But if you keep going down this road—you might actually end up proving yourself right.
As far as I'm concerned, just keep at it. It’s not like I’m going to miss you.

The film was absolute garbage from start to finish.
It’s hardly surprising that a disgrace like that drunk president would actually enjoy it.

Whenever I see someone absolutely tearing a film apart, it immediately triggers an intense urge in me to go watch it myself.👍

And what on earth is GIOD? Honestly, these damn acronyms are enough to drive anyone insane.🤔

Hate speech...😵🤦
Someone finally snapped under the pressure...🥳

Sam Alvarez4 said:@Kevin Jones19

Just a quick correction 😁.
It isn't logicno.com anymore; it’s transitioned to geopolitica.news.

If you just copy and paste two or three links from the exact same source every single day, for instance:,
take this example without the actual link, but referencing geopolitica.news.

Then you're done in five minutes.

It’s because of this kind of mindless copy-pasting that Larry Walker24 completely lost all credibility. I don't see any reason why we should let anyone else slide for doing the exact same thing.
It comes down to a matter of culture—if you don't say hello to your aunt at the grocery store, she isn't going to buy you ice cream. It's simple: if you're rude, you deal with the consequences.

Based on this thread alone, one might come to the conclusion that people with a double-digit IQ are incredibly high-strung and prone to taking offense at the slightest provocation. Please, by all means, carry on; I’m sure the psychologists and sociologists will be deeply grateful for the data you're providing.🥳

I honestly can’t quite put my finger on why, while reading through these perfectly justified and rather bitter critiques of my character and my work, a certain old folk saying drifted into my mind:

"The mice are bickering in the grain,
as the black one fouls the white..."🙂

John Palmer9 said:He isn't actually a leftist; he’s just a plant from the right wing sent to discredit the left, making people say, "Look at what kind of degenerates these leftists are."

On an American online forum, it shouldn't really matter whether someone identifies as a leftist or a conservative. From a purely logical standpoint, the only thing that should matter is whether a user is a troll or not. In the ecosystem of internet forums, I've observed that purging trolls is the single most vital factor for a community's survival.

Poletarac, it’s clear to me that someone swapped out your industrial hemp seeds for some low-grade Indian variety.
Do us all a favor and go tend to your worms and beetles instead of cluttering up this space.

Nives Celzijus - just sit there and suffer through it!🥳
Take a good look at what you've become; back in the day, people actually used to get worked up over you...🙂

Just take it easy and don't go ruining your weekend over this; there's plenty of time to make a decision later on...🕺

Jacob Alvarez said:A forum without bluecyclist64 is like a toilet without a plunger. 👍

If I were gay, I wouldn't be able to get any sleep...🤣
👍