Posts by Brenda Cook4

rowdyotter25 said:I received a warning in my direct messages. I can't use that. It’s those classic "false dilemmas" that get me. They set up these rigged scenarios just to justify pulling a card on the Moderation board later, using quotes ripped from an entirely different thread. Honestly, I agree that the specific post being used was problematic, but there's no reason to repeat that mistake.

.

Please, stop spreading misinformation. I already told you exactly what I thought—I even sent you a private message asking you to stop dragging out the same "fake dilemma" over and over again. Thank goodness for direct messaging, because now I'm going to send some much-needed praise over to Nicole James.

(Which I definitely agree is a bit controversial, and honestly, I don't think it's worth making that same mistake twice.)

I was looking back at some of your older posts earlier—you have such a distinct way of putting things together. It’s actually become one of my favorite parts of following this thread, so if you could keep that style going, I’d really appreciate it.

Gregory Turner71 said:Look, rowdyotter25, Look, since you’ve already admitted that your last post was a total disaster—honestly, you practically earned a red card for that one—let's just call it what it is and move on.We had a deep dive during our private session, mostly focusing on the specific criteria and... We're definitely going to need to circle back and hash this out some more.But honestly, half the crew—including the admins—is out on vacation right now, so we aren't exactly in a position to make any major decisions at the moment.

If this were just one single post like that:

Kids in America are increasingly prone to risky sexual behavior and often find themselves justifying violence against women—even when they are women themselves. It seems we’re raising them within the framework of traditional marriages, and that's clearly having an impact.

Studies have pointed out certain risks associated with traditional upbringing, yet I don't see any reason to dismantle the institution of marriage itself. However, when it comes to the potential risks of homosexual parenting, those concerns just haven't been backed up by any actual evidence.

Violence against gay people is incomparably more frequent within the American Society than in more secular societies. Honestly, I find it a total failure that religious folks aren't stepping up to influence one another—there needs to be a real push to quiet down this constant demonization of the LGBTQ+ community that’s fueling all of this.

In America, LGBTQ+ individuals don't have the freedom to live openly as their true selves without facing backlash. And yet, you all stand here telling them they’re just being "exhausting" by fighting for their basic rights—all while expressing admiration for the way people in Russia legally punish them for it.

I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate drama, but if you compare this situation to how a major corporation like Apple handles a product rollout, you see a totally different level of coordination. Everything feels a bit scattered right now. It reminds me of that one time I was trying to organize a massive charity event in Chicago—everything seemed fine on paper, but once the actual logistics hit, it felt like we were building the plane while flying it. That’s kind of where we are. We have all these great ideas, but the execution is just... messy. If we want to actually get somewhere, we can't just keep reacting to every little thing. We need a roadmap. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels.

ili

I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. It’s like when you’re trying to fix a leaky faucet by tightening the handle, but the real problem is actually a cracked pipe deep inside the wall. You can twist that handle until your knuckles bleed, but you aren't solving the core issue. We keep circling the same arguments, focusing on these surface-level symptoms, while ignoring the fundamental structural flaws in how this whole system is built. It’s frustrating, really. We’re all just spinning our wheels. If we don't address the underlying cause—the actual "cracked pipe"—all this debating is just noise. We need to stop treating the symptom and start looking at the foundation.

I’ve heard people claim that it’s somehow "bad" for Germany to constantly sift through its own ashes regarding those historical camps. But honestly? Germans have mastered the art of being blunt about it. They openly acknowledge that facing their darkest chapters head-on is exactly what fueled their rapid progress and built such a prosperous, forward-thinking society. The US hasn't quite hit that level of accountability. We haven't fully confronted our own history of systemic wrongs—not even during the era of the old administration, and certainly not now. I’ve even seen people in certain circles here arguing that we don't even have a history of crimes to account for. It’s wild. If people could just take one honest look back at where we came from—remembering how we used to use the exact same arguments against interracial marriage that some use today—they probably wouldn't have the nerve to act so self-righteous now.

Don't act surprised that people feel backed into an impossible corner regarding LGBTQ+ rights. It’s really not all that shocking when you look at the bigger picture. You see this kind of pattern everywhere. Take the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, for example. Every single day, impoverished communities are losing people to AIDS because missionaries have spent years preaching that using protection will land them in hell—ignoring the fact that condoms aren't even a foolproof shield against the virus anyway. It's the same logic playing out in different contexts. I know you won't admit it to yourselves, but let’s be honest: you aren't actually fighting against same-sex marriage because of the kids. If that were the case, you wouldn't have washed your hands of everything when the Forest Hills incident went down. And don't tell me you care about people's welfare—you stay silent while people in distant parts of the world suffer the consequences of this kind of propaganda..

And right there, you can see the beginning of that classic, tired racism argument. It’s like watching a broken record—we see that same old Forest Hills logic being recycled, exactly like the point he made in that previous post he claims to have "realized" he got wrong. He’s acting like it's a brand-new epiphany when we all know he's just repeating himself. The guy just points at one specific instance and goes, "See? Boom, racism," while constantly framing everything through this aggressive "you, you, you" mentality.

edit:

I should probably add a disclaimer here: I’m highlighting these posts just to show the broader patterns—it’s not my way of saying this is how everyone in America thinks or that the Church is some monolith. But honestly, one thing really stung me, and it felt incredibly low, was the comment about kids in America being "raised to be future woman-beaters." On any other forum, you’d probably get banned for saying something like that. Look, I’m not a fan of banning people; I think everyone should have a voice. I just wish we could move past the sweeping generalizations and the constant repetition of the same tired talking points, regardless of who's saying them.

rowdyotter25 said:I’m frustrated because you can’t just hide behind the Rules when you want to justify a ban; instead, you try to win by arguing the topic itself. It feels like you're using moderation to protect your own side of the debate rather than focusing on the quality of the discussion, which is actually what a moderator is supposed to do.

Look, I already gave you my answer, and I've "defended" why I issued the ban. This isn't the first time a moderator might have made a mistake with a strike—that’s exactly why we have mods and admins to review things, and it wouldn't be the first time a strike was reversed. I’m certainly not the final word on anything here. My stance remains the same: this was blatant trolling through repetitive, unnecessary behavior (it wasn't just "an argument") without providing any actual logic to back up the claim that opposing same-sex marriage is racism.

So, that’s settled. Do you have any other strikes to discuss or any further complaints regarding how things are being moderated?

Carl Brooks18 said:1. Look, I never once used the word "outages," and I absolutely did NOT attempt to censor anyone's freedom of speech. Please stop accusing me of things I didn't do and quit putting words in my mouth.

2. I have a serious question here: if an average user isn't allowed to label homosexuality as a sickness or a disorder, then does a moderator get a pass to do it?

3. That wasn't even directed at you—it was for the site administration. Honestly, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation with you.

Actually, you were the one linking back to my posts, and not just from the Religion thread, but from another PDF entirely. I participate in these discussions just like any other regular user, moderator, or admin. There’s a specific button for quoting for a reason.

Regarding whether certain topics are off-limits: I expect Strile to weigh in and confirm what I said, because that's what we're debating. No single moderator should be left hanging in a dilemma to make these calls alone. That was the situation here. And please, stop twisting my words—I clearly stated that, within context, one can express an opinion that homosexuality is a disorder, rather than simply labeling people as "disordered," and obviously, that requires providing actual arguments.

Carl Brooks18 said:This isn't about freedom of speech at all and this is just another classic move where you shift the goalposts to something else entirely while accusing me of trying to defend free speech. You’re playing the victim with those cheap, populist clichés. And honestly, the only actual response to the controversial posts was "I was just joking." Not exactly a brilliant defense.

Look, like I said, nobody’s right to free speech is being questioned here. You’re perfectly free to write whatever you want, and I am perfectly free to call out what you're saying—especially from my position as a moderator.
I brought up the examples regarding the "ailments" you mentioned, the way you use sarcasm and mockery when discussing specific topics, and how you back those kinds of posts. Since other moderators have already flagged that kind of behavior as unacceptable for regular users, I decided to raise the question here. As you put it, let the higher-ups look into whether there's any basis for a reaction. Ultimately, I just want to know what's allowed on this forum and what isn't. I haven't even touched the idea of stripping you of your moderator privileges; that's for the people who actually make those calls to handle.

That is literally the only thing we are talking about. When you start listing things I supposedly shouldn't say (and linking posts to prove it) and labeling them as "outbursts" or "homophobia"—all because I called you out for linking a post, quoting a snippet from an article in the New York Times, or commenting on a PDF about Philosophy—then we aren't talking about anything else. We are talking about the idea of banning opinions that you personally find "unsuitable" for me to hold as a forum member.

Now, let's be clear: moderation is one thing if you have a grievance, especially since we're working from different sets of rules here, but my writing as a regular user is another. So, what's the deal with the moderation? Your complaint is directed at me as a user for my supposed "outbursts."

[/No, like I said, nobody’s right to free speech is being questioned here. You’re perfectly free to write whatever you want, and I am perfectly free to call out what you're saying—especially from my position as a moderator.QUOTE]

You are free to challenge my speech within a thread, to argue and counter-argue, and you're free to report my posts as inappropriate. But you are *not* free to turn this into a formal complaint or spin it into a dedicated thread (and you aren't responsible for the existence of the thread itself).

So, here is the situation: you’ve singled me out for my opinions, not for my moderation (you know, things like issuing cards, deleting posts, or banning users), because I am writing here as a forum member. Yet, you’re taking my personal writing, calling it questionable, putting it through the formal complaint process, and now someone has opened a special thread just to debate me and my posts. Let's think about this for a second.

The thread regarding that one issued card usually belongs in the appeals section, where a user might get involved to discuss moderation. Everything else in this thread is about me as a user—my posts and my views—which is what is being "investigated" here. I didn't realize we could host a whole separate discussion about a user and their opinions on the PZK board; I was under the impression that such things were handled by using the report button.

rowdyotter25 said:Brenda, you're being unfair.

1. This isn't a duplicate post. I've used the same argument before, sure, but every single time I rewrote it specifically to respond to another user's point.
2. You actually blocked me via PM from even discussing what you personally view as a false dilemma.
3. Regarding the Appeal thread, you supported the penalty by quoting something that wasn't even in the flagged post—and based on that, Ego justified the ban.

In this thread, where we are all questioning your moderation, you keep pivoting the conversation toward homosexuality instead of just explaining how your decisions align with the Rules.

Why make things up? I didn't "block" you; I simply answered your question about why the post was sanctioned, which was due to repeating the same point a million times (and yes, I consider that a false dilemma and a logical fallacy).

But no, it seems like any time I make an argument, you'll just claim that someone opposing same-sex marriage is a racist. I'm looking at the appeals, and I've cited some of them.

No, like I said, I just set that aside to illustrate how you handle arguments in other posts—it's quite obvious in the card appeal threads. And look, if Ego made a mistake, he can fix it; even moderators can get a call wrong sometimes. Besides, I already explained my reasoning to Ego regarding why the card was issued.

Alright, fine—you're complaining about the moderation. You received one single card out of 418 posts. Honestly, I think that might be the only card I've handed out in this entire thread. So, where is the issue with the moderation? Is it "repressive"? How?

Carl Brooks18 said:. Not to mention the way this moderator talks to other users, basically accusing them of "overstepping":

Here, she’s circling back to those same old "issues," claiming there’s been plenty of them:

Bottom line is, there’s plenty of material to study when it comes to this moderator's "management style."

Oh, please! Heaven forbid I accidentally get a little feisty—I mean, what if Beljki or ego felt even slightly offended? Good grief.🙄

Look, I’ve said my piece. The admins will have their say (and honestly, anyone else who wants to speak up will too). If the administration actually believes these accusations against me—and if they start entertaining requests like yours that try to strip away free speech by labeling everything as an "outburst" or a "phobia" just because it doesn't align with your personal views—then I won't stay for a second longer. If that's how things work, I'm more than happy to step down from moderating the Religion section.

rowdyotter25 said:Whether or not an analogy works is entirely your own opinion, and as a moderator, you aren't entitled to strip away a thesis just because you disagree with its logic. You can't just delete arguments.

You handed out a card based on my analogy regarding racism—an analogy I fully explained in my previous post. I wasn't literally repeating myself. Then, in a PM, you told me I'm no longer allowed to present that "false dilemma." It feels like you’re cherry-picking one valid line of reasoning and using your moderator powers to gatekeep which arguments are permitted in the debate and which ones aren't.

On top of that, regarding the appeal, you posted a quote from a completely different thread—one that didn't even trigger the card—just to get another moderator to back you up. They took your quote as proof, not the actual content of the flagged post. You essentially misrepresented why the card was issued in the first place.

Oh, what a spin! I didn't "remove" your thesis (it's still sitting there dozens of posts down), I simply issued a card for repeatedly throwing that specific argument at anyone who speaks.

In our private messages, I pointed out that this has been repeated a million times, and that is the whole point. Personally, I view it as a false dilemma, and I explained my reasoning. Similarly, for the appeal, I included some of your other points in parentheses—like your claim that being against same-sex marriage is synonymous with supporting pedophilia in Brezovica or the mistreatment of women. Since I consider that a pseudo-dilemma, I included it to explain exactly why the card was given. I didn't misrepresent anything.

Look, I have no interest in playing judge or handing out punishments; I don't care about making value judgments, and neither is that part of the rules. If your primary argument is that opposing same-sex marriage is "racism"—combined with that classic, logically flawed *reductio ad absurdum*—we can certainly have a debate about that on the main thread. But let me be clear: that is not why the card was issued.

rowdyotter25 said:I’m adding my two cents here: the moderator for this thread is being totally biased. She’s actually breaking our own subforum rules herself and handing out cards just because she doesn't like someone else's debating style—even though she uses those exact same tactics.

Brenda Cook4 trolling us:
putting words in people's mouths, repeating the same old thing
pure trolling—ignoring the actual point and turning it into a ridiculous caricature
"it's obvious you don't get it, so we're doing it my way"

I'm telling you, by threatening people with sanctions, the moderator is effectively shutting down valid arguments in a discussion where she’s also a participant. Plus, she’s breaking the rules without any penalty (both the explicit ones in the Rules and the unspoken ones where she hands out cards to others while ignoring her own behavior).

On top of that, I got hit with a card on a post where I was using an analogy regarding race and sexual orientation (strictly due to repetition). In a PM, she told me I'm no longer allowed to use that specific argument, but when she filed the appeal, she misrepresented the whole thing by quoting an older post that had nothing to do with it. The post that actually earned the card didn't even break any subforum rules

I already explained why you got the card. A card is meant for trolling, specifically for someone who keeps repeating the exact same thing over and over again. No matter who says it, your argument was always the same: "racism." However, once it was explained that racism is a fundamental human right under the UN Declaration, and once the legal precedent from the European Court was linked showing that the right to marriage isn't classified as a fundamental human right in that context—meaning that wouldn't be the argument anymore—you just kept circling back to the same claim. It's true, and it's true.

Btw, why did you link the exact same post twice in your links above (the first one) and write "once again"?

That card was a one-time thing to stop the trolling, considering you have over 400 posts (which is nearly triple everyone else's), so I really don't see how that could be seen as "preventing" anyone from making an argument.

Laura Harris8;45593972 said:]Let me be clear—for the third time now—because I refuse to be insulted or have the very rules of this forum twisted against me. [/B]I didn't come here looking for "bans," nor did I tell anyone they had to shut up. I simply said I wasn't interested in debating that specific point with you; otherwise, I would have reached out privately. The policy here is straightforward: calling homosexuality a disease isn't allowed, because it isn't one. When someone tries to convince others or even comments that it’s a disorder, they are essentially labeling gay people as sick or unstable. To me, that feels like harassment, but my personal feelings aside, it's about the forum's policy, which several moderators have emphasized and warned us about before.

That's why, given your activity on that topic and a string of controversial posts, I came here seeking clarification. I don't have access to the thread you keep bringing up, so I'm not familiar with the specific comments or decisions made there.

From where I'm sitting, you're attacking me from the get-go. You're labeling my views as "outbursts"—to the point where you're actually stalking my posts in the Philosophy chat—and slapping the "homophobe" label on me. And your "evidence"? It's just those links you shared, which don't actually prove any of what you're claiming.

On the other hand, if the expectation is that no one can say anything because an opinion is considered "harassment" against some political agenda or whatever course is being taken, then I definitely have something to say. I see that as a blatant violation of free speech and the right to hold an opinion.

So, according to you, I'm a "homophobe" having "outbursts" because I don't support same-sex marriage, I didn't sign the petition, and I won't show up to vote in the referendum. Biologically speaking, I view homosexuality as a deviation from the norm. Whether it was placed on a list of mental illnesses and later moved to paraphilias, or removed from that list entirely, doesn't mean much to me—I never understood why it was on such a list in the first place (just like I don't understand the purpose of the entire list).
Calling me homophobic? Calling my views outbursts? Prohibiting that stance from being expressed? Unbelievable. I really thought we were past those days.

And of course, you showed up specifically to enforce bans, because you think certain opinions are "unfit" for this space.

What am I supposed to do with the believers in the Religion thread who signed the petition and are against same-sex marriage? Should I ban them too? Or should we provide a pre-approved list of "acceptable" words and arguments for them to use when explaining why they're opposed?

Honestly, I've been quite impressed with the Religion thread. We had over 2,700 posts without many warnings or major fights.

Carl Brooks18 said:What does some random ruling from the Superior Court have to do with this? It’s like some wealthy socialite driving drunk in a luxury car, killing someone, and then getting a mere two-year sentence. So what?!

On this forum's "courtroom," users have been told repeatedly that calling homosexuals "sick" isn't allowed—whether we're talking about Politics, Social Science, Religion, and so on. So, wouldn't you expect the moderators to lead by example? Or do the rules apply to everyone except the people running the show? :confused:

On the other hand, I'm looking at your entire history here, which is just loaded with insinuations about what is "normal" versus "deviant," such as this:

from those snide little comments to actually backing them up, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I'm done. I'm not interested in debating this with you. Maybe if the admins would finally weigh in and clarify what's actually permitted and what isn't. For instance, is it okay to call homosexuals "sick," or is it not? Right now, the line is incredibly blurry.

It matters quite a bit, even if, obviously, a forum is private property and can decide its own rules. And regarding Religion, I already mentioned that this issue came up during a moderated debate there, and Strile agreed with that too.
Just a note: nobody is using the word 'sick people,' they are discussing 'disorders/illnesses,' if they hold that view.

. I'm not interested in debating this with you.

Of course you aren't, because honestly, I should probably just stay quiet so you can feel free to demand bans on anything that happens to rub you the wrong way. Sure thing.

Admins, please, weigh in.

Carl Brooks18 said:It’s not about my personal definition of what’s "right," nor am I defending anyone's "right to an opinion." Just because we don't fully understand the origins of homosexuality doesn't mean it's acceptable for someone to label it a sickness. Your version of "free speech" hits a wall the moment it starts infringing on someone else's fundamental dignity. No one gets a pass to call others ill as a way to harass them, especially when their identity isn't even part of any medical diagnosis.

You’ve crossed the line quite a few times—it's pretty obvious from what you've posted here—even when you try to play it safe with your wording. You've definitely contributed to these heated debates, so I'm waiting to see if another moderator will weigh in on your conduct.

I already refuted your "evidence," yet you keep circling back to the same point. You seem to be operating under the logic of a Superior Court regarding the idea that calling homosexuality a "disorder" is just an expression of opinion (which, for the record, I have never personally said—I simply expressed confusion as to why it was ever on a medical list in the first place).

Note:
On July 18, 2011, the Superior Court of Los Angeles released its first-instance ruling in the trial involving religious teacher Jelen Mudrovčić, a case that gripped the American public, particularly among practicing believers.
The prosecution, representing the Lesbian group "Kontra," argued that the teacher had referred to homosexual individuals as sick during a religion class, "thereby intentionally encouraging discriminatory thinking and behavior among children, causing significant harm to the community and society at large."

After hearing witness testimony to determine whether Mudrovčić explicitly stated that homosexuality is a disease, the court "ruled that such statements do not constitute discrimination, but rather fall under the protection of freedom of expression."

This view was also supported by the admin, Strile, in the moderator section.

Trying to ban specific viewpoints and labeling them with various "phobias" just to force your own perspective as the standard... honestly, that should be an absolute non-starter on a forum in the 21st century.

And yes, I'm waiting for the admins to speak up.

Carl Brooks18 said:I’m not actually appealing a ban here, but I honestly don't know where else to bring this up. I’ve already filed a report, but I wanted to flag this specific situation here too, since I have no idea what will come of that report over in the Religion section.

Basically, we have a moderator, Brenda Cook4, who is essentially pushing a news article by cherry-picking specific quotes. They're focusing heavily on the social and religious aspects of homosexuality, using an author's perspective that labels being gay as a disease, something deviant, or abnormal behavior. The writer is basically arguing that what they view as "deviant" or "sick" shouldn't be allowed to become "normal" or "healthy."

And this isn't just a one-off. This moderator has been jumping into these discussions for a while now with some pretty homophobic takes. In this particular post, they suggest we should revert to "what was previously established," which feels like a heavy insinuation that homosexuality ought to be classified as a mental illness.

On several other threads, this moderator either voices or backs up homophobic sentiments. Here, they're actually mocking homosexuality by backing up a previous comment:

which says:
"Yeah, because that's what we 'evolved' for, right?"

These are just a few examples. It might be time for someone to take a closer look at this "moderator's" activity.

'Homophobic'? Let's break that down:

1.

Here, they are mocking and making fun of homosexuality, backing up the previous comment:

which says:
"Yeah, because that's what we 'evolved' for, right?"

The previous comment was actually this one:

And that was in the Philosophy chat, referring to monogamy, which is what I was continuing to discuss.

2. What do you mean 'propagating' a news article? I was just quoting a link from a user in The New York Times—how is that 'propagating'? What kind of logic is that? Where am I living if I can't share something from a legitimate American newspaper? Apparently, if I try to spark a discussion about the start of an article, people will try to shut me down and call it 'propaganda.' It seems like they'd find it very hard to defend that journalist, too.

3. Reverting to 'what was established':

I already answered ego (and I've mentioned my thoughts on the DSM and whether it ever even included these things in multiple posts, both here and elsewhere):

Quote: The ego. said:I totally missed this one. If you had to circle back to any specific point we discussed earlier, what would be your go-to?

Look closely at those quotation marks. We’re dealing with a term that, quite frankly, lacks any actual scientific backing at this stage. It’s all speculation. What seems much more plausible to me isn't some deep-seated genetic blueprint, but rather a complex cocktail of hormonal shifts and environmental triggers. Only time will tell for sure, though.

Maybe it’s high time someone actually took a look at how this "moderator" is handling things.

Either they should focus on these kinds of ideas—you know, the whole "banning free speech" thing—because, let’s be honest, it’s clearly just about silencing anything that doesn't align with what they personally believe is right.

This is the opening post from forum member Big Jason. Since we’re diving into the world of theology here, we figured a proper introduction was the only way to kick things off right.

If there’s a cross-border component involved, is an American payment order mandatory if the creditor kicks off a direct debit process? Or does that effectively rule out filing an enforcement proposal with a notary?

See, the Regulation (and the Consumer Protection Agency) makes it pretty clear that a creditor can pick their own lane when it comes to the type of proceeding—meaning they could opt for standard litigation or even arbitration. But if they decide to go the enforcement route via a payment order, are they strictly locked into using an electronic payment order?

neonwalker95 said:That’s exactly why forums have moderators—to prevent the whole place from devolving into pure noise and spam. These "new Catholics" from those specific groups act just like spammers. It’s not enough for them to have their own websites; they need to hijack other people's domains and universities because they haven't actually managed to rally those 60,000 anti-sex-education parents they keep dreaming about. They're basically just looking for a platform to force their agenda onto ours.

Spammers, trolls, and those self-appointed "gatekeepers" acting like internal and external enemies🤣... look, this isn't a private club where one side gets to be "legitimate" while anyone who disagrees is labeled a spammer spreading "fairy tales." Everyone has a right to their opinion. Whether we agree with them or not is precisely what makes a forum worth having in the first place.

northerntiger said:With that kind of pathetic labeling—which seems to be your trademark—you don't even deserve a shot at posting on this forum. As far as I'm concerned, people like you should just get a permanent ban. There are plenty of shady corners of the internet where you and your crowd can wallow together, obsessing over enemies or counting the red blood cells in Fred Matić’s body. No big deal, really; the only catch is that nobody actually reads those sites, unlike this forum, which remains one of the most popular spots in the US and beyond, unlike that hated old USSR.😁

And why do you talk like that? Are you the owner of the site now, deciding who belongs in the "shady" corners? What are you trying to say? That if someone doesn't radiate that specific vibe, they aren't "read"? Do we all have to blow the same horn, just like back in the old USSR? Hasn't that era passed yet? Or is that just too hard for you to accept?

If people are interested in a topic, why shut it down? If they aren't interested, then the thread just dies a natural death on its own.

Elizabeth Baker38 said:Once the political grandstanding dies down, the public mood shifts, and everyone starts bickering over Facebook posts about some underfunded local hospital, my take was simply that the conversation had run its course.

Oh, really? You can't just claim "the conversation has run its course" as an excuse. Anderlon doesn't exist to shut down discussions whenever they get messy. The moderators are here to scrub or penalize posts that break the rules—that’s their job—but that definitely isn't the same thing as saying, "Well, I guess we're done talking now."

I'm speaking as a long-time member (and also as a mod), because I have no interest in seeing this forum turn into whatever the moderators personally feel like reading. This isn't a stuffy university seminar or a textbook; it's the raw, unfiltered voice of the people. So, let them talk.

Grace Sullivan42 said:I’m curious—what exactly is the rule that bans discussing Nora Fora or anything inspired by her? It feels like we're being cut off mid-sentence...

I'm right there with you. I'd love to know why we aren't allowed to talk about Nora either.😕

Stop being stagnant, stop letting yourself go, and just start studying. It’s this vicious cycle, isn't it? You aren't keeping up with your coursework, so you start beating yourself up, which leads to stress-eating, which leads to weight gain, and before you know it, you're hiding under the covers just to avoid facing the basic, straightforward steps you actually need to take to fix things.