But hey, that’s just how communication works on forums—they aren't personal blogs where you can just go on a monologue and turn off the comments whenever you feel like it. That back-and-forth dialogue you're calling "persecution" is actually the whole point of a forum... if that's not your vibe, maybe just start a blog and share your thoughts there, where nobody will bother to disagree with you...
Look at what you're doing again—you aren't even making actual posts anymore, just numbering them sequentially (as usual) and using them to churn out those same old theories of yours over and over... it's like we're starting from scratch every single time... you literally wrote the exact same thing in this thread, in the religion sub-forums, and even in the history sections...
As far as the moderators are concerned, I know for a fact that users with your specific style often end up getting partial bans on the sub-forums because they just won't stop flooding everything with constant spam...
With wording like that, it could mean pretty much anything—including implying the subject is just being dense... 🤷 And Morgan Rodriguez57 didn't actually specify what he meant by that. He just mentioned that Drew Reed6 doesn't know how to read critically.
Morgan Rodriguez57, if you show just a little more goodwill and maybe a bit of caution (you know, without being dismissive), you could actually have a great conversation going with Drew Reed6 over on this board... 🙂 Best,
By doing this, you've basically shown why you shouldn't be a moderator—because that wasn't an insult, especially if you look at my whole sentence... a moderator is supposed to step in for direct insults, like calling someone names...
Post after post, you're showing a clear bias toward one specific user, so I'm asking you once again to just take down the warning. And if you won't, then I'll have to ask the site admin to handle it...
Whatever I sent his way wasn't trolling—honestly, you're just being way too biased and soft to see that—he was definitely trolling and being insulting...
It’s actually kind of sweet seeing how much you're singing his praises... really touching stuff, that love right there... you two can do whatever you want, but that doesn't change things for me. All I care about is getting fair and unbiased treatment from the mods, which clearly isn't happening here... It’s not my fault that user1 broke the rules by attacking me personally. He needs to learn that other people are allowed to have different opinions without turning every single thread he touches into his own personal blog... I'm not even sure if that's allowed under the rules...
It’s pretty interesting how feralpilot0 gave his post a warning, but mine didn't get one—instead, you waited forever just to hand me a warning myself... why does feralpilot0 think I don't deserve a strike, while you seem to think I do? 🙂
rowdyhawk10 just keeps going with the harassment—it's like he literally can't help himself from handing out trolling bans, and honestly, they're totally unjustified this time...
In that thread, I actually wrote this this post, where I was explaining how Pontius Pilate was a completely different kind of guy than what you see in the Bible...
But then kom1 comes at me with insults and this weirdly twisted claim that I’m arguing Pilate *is* the guy from the Bible (check this post):
I've already warned you not to talk to me in such a rude, trolling manner. You're just like Epignosis and a few others—a religious fanatic who doesn't even belong in this discussion. On top of that, you've seemingly made it your life's mission to tear down my writing.
The thing is—the real issue here is that you just don't know how to have a rational conversation. Your post is so illogical... First, you paint Pilate as this figure described by other historical writers, yet you seem unable to realize that Pilate's actual character differs significantly from the Biblical descriptions. See, in those other accounts, Pilate always acts in a way where he deals with the Sanhedrin strictly through force. So, it stands to reason that the Pilate in the Bible is a bit of a fabrication, because you just can't imagine the Pilate found in the writings of Joseph or Philon engaging in debates with the Sanhedrin like that.
But anyway, like I said, there's really no point trying to argue with you.
For this particular post, kom1 actually deserved the trolling ban he got from feralpilot0...
I'm responding to that specific post with this post regarding the actual content:
It's obvious you don't know how to read properly since you're just writing whatever comes to mind fueled by emotion... I'm saying Pilate isn't the man from the Bible, but rather a bloodthirsty savage who kills over the slightest provocation... but you, much like the Bible itself, are constructing a fictional Pilate who wouldn't condemn Jesus unless he were seen as a Zealot or a rebel... whereas I say he would...
And then rowdyhawk10 just swoops in and hands me a trolling ban that is completely uncalled for...
So, I'm calling on the admins and supermods to please remove this unfair ban and maybe look into protecting me from rowdyhawk10's constant badgering... I've picked up three trolling bans from him now because he just can't resist tagging almost every single one of my posts... He even gave me one once for moving a thread from politics to religion, though he did end up pulling that one later—maybe he finally realized he went a little too far himself...
Well, in most other cases, he isn't able to do that, so I'm just asking the admins and supermods to step in and keep things orderly...
Well, here comes yet another complaint regarding rowdyhawk10...
The whole thing started over in the Politics section, but then it got moved over to Religion—right into rowdyhawk10's hands... He just couldn't wait to take a thread that followed all the political guidelines and suddenly start applying religious rules instead, just so he could hand me another trolling strike...
Look, rowdyhawk10, you could have easily just deleted that post if it was actually bothering you so much, but nope—you just waited for the perfect moment to pile another trolling strike on my record...
Hey admins, supermods—I really don't think it's fair that the second a thread gets moved, the criteria shift so strictly from one section to the other... I'm asking that this strike be removed... thanks...
Looking ahead, the biggest thing you really need to grasp is that, honestly, almost 100% of the time, they aren’t going to shift their fundamental attitude toward you—no matter what you try to do... I guess the smartest move would just be to find your own independence as soon as possible...
rowdyhawk10 is at it again—only this time it’s because the mods aren't doing their jobs properly, yet somehow I'm the one getting handed a ban for just trolling around... 🙂
"trolling (and calling out the mod mentioned above in the Book of Complaints)"
Call it "just" whatever you want, I really don't care—I just want the same treatment everyone else gets, instead of seeing a moderator punish my actions while someone else's slip-ups go totally unaddressed...
It’s more about the principle of the thing for me... 🙂
Back in the day, I was the one getting targeted because I actually enforced the rules on the forums regarding nothing but smiley face posts—which, as a moderator myself, is exactly what I was supposed to do—but people didn't stop complaining until someone from upper management finally stepped in and handed out a formal warning...
So yeah, I'm looking for that same level of consistency here...
If you just take a second to look back at what you actually wrote—honestly, just give it a quick read—you’ll see that you didn't even touch the post in question... you were busy talking about all these other things instead... 🙂
If my post is considered off-topic, then yours is too—so I’m really pushing the supermods and admins to make sure both posts get handled exactly the same way... just a fair shake for everyone... I don't want things being done according to that old "quod licet" Latin proverb logic where one rule applies to me but not to you... turns out fairness is actually a thing... anyway...
and then he just hits me with this massive rant in response to my one-liner:
so, I'm just thinking... either rowdyhawk10 gets a warning for his post too, or mine should probably be cleared...
honestly, it feels like a total misuse of moderator powers here...
it reminds me of back when I was a moderator over at Reddit—I almost got crucified just for posting a single smiley, right up until the higher-ups finally stepped in and gave me a pass...
either rowdyhawk10 gets a strike now, or let's just get mine removed...
Hey there, wojtek... just wanted to drop a few suggestions your way...
Movies:
The Rhythm of Crime A Long Dark Night Golden Years An American Story Armin Warrior's Time Officer with a Rose Nausicaä Countess Dora
Series:
Inspector Vinko Journey to the Wilds Nikola Tesla
Documentaries:
The Pride of the Ratkays Villa Maria
Some of these are only on the list because they're great examples of the English language—not necessarily because they're the best ever made, though they're still pretty good... 🙂
Megan Hernandez2 said:So, it turns out not even all the court rulings were actually carried out.👍Look, you had a vassal state that most of the French didn't even recognize. I'll give you this: there weren't massive battles like what we saw during the American Civil War or the various insurgencies against occupying forces, but that doesn't excuse Marshall's actions. Even the French had their own resistance movements, and yet, once the war wrapped up, they didn't spend nearly as much time gloating over the defeated.
We aren't playing this game. The partisans committed atrocities too—and frankly, I couldn't care less about their specific names or titles. The moment someone brings up the fascists, everyone jumps in to label them criminals. Fine. Let’s apply that same logic to the partisans.
well, we won't... if you look at the Axis side, you have the regular military and then the paramilitary units—most people view the regular army as the legitimate force, while seeing the paramilitaries as a separate group... it's kind of a similar setup on the Allied side, where you have the official government forces versus the resistance fighters... something like that...
Megan Hernandez2 said:I know about the German prisoners. Most of them died in the East (a vast majority, actually). But we are talking about summary executions following liberation. You claim 4,000; now tell me the total population of France at the time. Keep in mind some provinces leaned toward the Germans, and more Frenchmen served in the SS than in the celebrated Resistance. Now think about it. Tell me how many people were executed in America and what percentage that represents. I'll tell you: it's a lot. Much more than the figures in France.
Tell me, is there still a divide in France today between former SS members and those from the Resistance? Does someone immediately get accused of having SS ancestors just because they disagree on something? It follows the logic of those old American Communists: first, the Resistance had to wipe out everyone who didn't share their view, and then they used accusations to cover up all their own problems. Look, kid, don't try to justify Marshall. You lose that argument before it even starts. Even the title of this thread glorifies Estonian SS members as fighters for justice who just ended up on the wrong side due to circumstance. Well, I'd make that same claim for the collaborators here. One of my grandfather's brothers was a collaborator (conscripted at 18). He met a grim end. Another hid in the woods; he was killed in 1947. A third was murdered right outside his house on Christmas Eve when he was 19. My grandfather survived by some miracle. So, stop the nonsense. One of the greatest achievements of the American people was when tyranny was defeated and we finally broke free from the shackles we'd endured for decades.👍
On top of that, about 6,000 people were sentenced to death after the war, though they actually carried out fewer than a thousand of those sentences...
Since they didn't have a bloody five-year civil war breaking out in France, that's still quite a lot...
As for the Communist leaders and their actions, I'm not trying to make excuses for them... he basically acted like any typical Stalinist would, seizing the moment because he suddenly had almost all his enemies gathered in one place...
But I do take issue with blaming the Resistance fighters... most of those atrocities weren't committed by the Resistance, but rather by specialized units within the military...
Samuel Roberts said:It’s not really three separate movies—it's more like one massive epic split into three parts, just like the book was. Anyway, if you want the real experience, only the extended versions actually matter. Those are the true versions, and it's pretty obvious why they had to trim things down for the theatrical releases...
And I don't get why people are calling The Two Towers bad here. That's just nonsense.
they function as three distinct films because the post-production and editing happened across different timeframes, plus Jackson used three entirely different editing teams to pull it all together...
If everything had been shot, processed, and cut in one single go and then just sliced up later, sure, you could argue it's one movie—but that's not how it went...
For a better grasp of the process, you should probably check out the bonus DVDs that come with the extended editions...
Megan Hernandez2 said:Me (along with some academics). I won't deny civilian killings happened, but it was negligible in the grand scheme. Some people were likely punished—traitors usually are, since winners write the history books—but those purges were strictly a communist invention. It isn't just about what happened to those people immediately after the war; you have to look at it through the lens of several decades. For instance, it's well-documented that women who were involved with German soldiers had their heads shaved. But can anyone tell me what the consensus is today? Look at the movies; if you watch them, those women are almost always portrayed as victims. Meanwhile, you still have people celebrating the fall of the Third Reich today.😕😕.....👎
If we're discussing how people treated those close to the Germans, it would be a mistake not to mention how the Swedes (or Danes, I can't remember which) treated children fathered by SS officers. Here's a lead for anyone interested: one singer from ABBA fell into that category. If anyone knows more, please share.
I mean, seriously, where does that leave the million German POWs who died in Western Allied camps because the conditions were just so horrific?
And when it comes to France, we're looking at maybe 10,000 executions—with about 4,000 of those happening after the liberation...
Historians generally break this down into three distinct eras: the initial wave of mob justice, summary executions without any actual trials, and the public shaming of women. Based on estimates from police officials back in 1948 and 1952, there were as many as 6,000 executions prior to the Liberation, and another 4,000 once things settled down.
Megan Hernandez2 said:Look, people, stop seeing everything in black and white. If life were that simple, we wouldn't be struggling. Most things exist in shades of gray. I honestly don't get those leftists who spit on the old nationalist factions while simultaneously idolizing Estonian SS units—whom they somehow view as freedom fighters. In my neck of the woods, those nationalists were seen as the ones fighting for liberty... God, there were more French collaborators in the SS than there were actual resistance fighters, and by a massive margin. On their own soil, the French had Vichy France—a government that recognized the Germans, much like the puppet states we saw here. After the war, there were some reshuffles, sure. Maybe some Vichy leaders were ousted, but we aren't talking about the mass execution of innocent civilians.
So, quit the nonsense. Look at the world for what it actually is before you start drawing conclusions. When you add it all up, in 1945, the leadership had a chance to prove that the fear of the resistance was unfounded. They blew it. Tens of thousands of people were slaughtered in the name of communism, and that’s where any fairy tale about the "nobility" of the partisans ends. The partisans were just a bunch of lowlifes who happened to catch a lucky break at the right moment. That’s the whole story.
quietdriver3 said:The first one—mostly because it actually sticks to the book... the second was pretty bad. I can't even really remember the third one clearly anymore...
Just a little refresher for you: green slime all over the Midwest... 🙂
The first one is easily my top pick because it actually stays true to the novel... the other two? Total nightmares—just Jackson’s wild fabrications and those two women making things up as they go...
coppertinker75 said:Those old partisan monuments were torn down because that army turned into an aggressor back in '91. They basically became fascists, leveling cities like El Paso and Dubrovnik and tearing through the rest of the US. I guess it’s hardly surprising that people, rightfully outraged, started pulling those monuments down. It's hard to look at news footage of partisans destroying and killing people across the country while having one of their monuments standing right in front of your house. Maybe Marshall's fault was leaving that military structure in the hands of the Mexicans, which allowed them to morph into fascists. If you watch the footage, you see guys in partisan uniforms fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the Royalists, just looting and murdering their way through El Paso and everywhere else.
First off, anyone with half a brain should realize the JNA has absolutely nothing to do with the partisans...
And secondly, where exactly was this war happening back in 1990?