Posts by Brenda Cook4

vivideagle8 said:hehehe, sure, those are extra pounds, but that's irrelevant now. I don't see how it connects to this topic at all.

Actually, I think there is a connection. It all boils down to discipline and taking responsibility for yourself versus falling into self-pity and a lack of confidence. That dynamic plays out on both a physical and mental level. You have to realize that you are the one in the driver's seat. Now, being in control doesn't mean everything will always go perfectly. When life hits you with a crisis, the best move is to look it right in the eye. Crises are inevitable—it's just part of the human condition—so what really matters is your reaction. If a crisis demands change, you can either fight it and end up stuck in a cycle of frustration, constant complaining, lost motivation, and endless overthinking while crying about your "unlucky fate" because things didn't go your way... or you can embrace the shift and see it as an opportunity to grow. At its core, spirituality is exactly that: the lived experience that shapes our narrative self.

neoncobra15 said:My comments were intended as a general observation regarding the frequent issue of administrative errors... and I wasn't just referring to this specific forum, but rather the broader landscape, which, truth be told, even this platform isn't entirely exempt from.

So, please understand there was no personal animosity or direct targeting involved.

And as a side note; while I haven't actively participated in any specific debates, I believe I maintain the right to express an opinion that doesn't necessarily contradict those held by el.bebi or cosmictinker21....though, I suppose I should probably brace myself for a ban now, shouldn't I? 🙂

Ah, so we're talking purely theoretical then.😁

And why on earth would you get banned?🙂

neoncobra15 said:So, that particular logic applies;

Saying "he/she is an idiot, a moron..." is sanctioned just as much as saying "I THINK he/she is an idiot, a moron..."

What most people fail to grasp and distinguish—and this includes the moderators themselves—is the difference between
1. a conclusive statement
2. an opinion

In any decent democratic society, within a liberal and civil environment, making a definitive claim versus posing a speculative one is often walking a tightrope... though such a distinction would collapse instantly in a court of law... because asserting that someone is wrong and merely thinking someone is wrong are as different as night and day.

In other words, "I think" is the magic word used to mask what we might actually believe... whereas freedom of speech protects opinions, but not necessarily intent.

For example;

"I think Perin's comment is childish and foolish... because of X and Y (argument)?!" (this shouldn't be sanctioned, as it's an expressed opinion which guarantees so-called freedom of speech and thought)

"Pero is a childish fool... because of X and Y..." (absolute sanction, because a direct insult is presented as a fact rather than an opinion, regardless of the argument provided)

And again, I realize I'm walking a fine line here... but this distinction really ought to be made, though of course, there must be a limit to insults disguised under the guise of "I think," otherwise the loophole could be easily abused.

I say this from my own real-life experience in the courtroom (where I served as a prosecutor)... and also from my experience on internet forums. Even if it looks identical from an administrator's perspective, higher laws and actual courts have ruled that "I think you're an idiot" is not the same thing as "you are an idiot." It's a paradoxical reality that humbles us mere mortals (and forum admins alike)... but that is how it works in practice. If we insist on adhering to the law, then who are we—or these little forum administrators—to claim that "you are..." and "I think you are..." are both identical insults? From this viewpoint, it almost seems as if the admins of certain forums view themselves as Gods above the laws of the country they live in... much like that old American adage: "My house, my rules." 😉

I'm not sure why you're elaborating on this now, because there isn't really a dilemma regarding the glaring difference between saying "you are stupid" and "you are talking nonsense." That distinction hasn't been ignored here. In fact, the user was handed a red card because they agreed with and signed off on a post that had already earned a red card for being insulting, specifically because they wrote: "You are definitely the stupidest person I've ever met!". i [URL="']here and here
Look, it's pretty straightforward.

But let me add: if you told someone in real life, "I think you're an idiot," that still constitutes an insult. You're likely using "I think" to soften the blow, whereas saying "what you are saying is, in my opinion, foolish" is something else entirely.

Steven Clark2 said:[/I]

What, in your opinion, would constitute being vulgar?

Look, we aren't talking about "trash talk" here; this user was sanctioned specifically for insults. I believe I’ve already clarified which kinds of behavior actually trigger a penalty. Using a word like "damn" or some mild slang isn't something I think warrants a ban. This is an online forum—it's supposed to reflect real people and real conversations. We maintain a basic code of conduct to keep things orderly, but we aren't trying to sanitize everything or script every single post. If you feel strongly about it, feel free to start a new thread over in the PZK section to discuss the definition of "trash talk."

cosmictinker21 said:Look, I don't have anything against the red brigade, I just think everything was completely misinterpreted. My "me too" comment was actually directed at the facepalm—I’m just cringing at the nonsense driftingfalcon3 has been peddling for days now. That interpretation wouldn't make sense in any universe. As for the swearing in my post, obviously, I don't condone that sort of thing. It should be pretty clear that that kind of behavior isn't really part of my persona. It’s fine, though; it's just the internet. I'm not angry, I just didn't explain myself well enough... I included the facepalm thinking people would realize what I was actually agreeing with. And this whole ridiculous situation regarding my signature is honestly beneath contempt. It's obvious some people here are just totally out of their depth. Anyway, take care, and I hope driftingfalcon3 feels a bit more vindicated now. It wouldn't be good if he had a heart attack over such a misunderstanding.😁

ps: I'm trying my best to avoid bringing up the whole premarital innocence debate. 😁

“The part where you said 'me too' referred to the facepalm because you're disgusted by the stupidity” — that is precisely why you received a red card. See, the post you agreed with was flagged specifically because of the line “I’ve never met anyone stupider than you”, which is why driftingfalcon3 was justified in lashing out and asking for you to get a red card as well.

Regarding the swearing: unless we are talking about swearing at forum members, their families, or using extremely crude, gutter language—or excessive use of those "Texan" profanities—we don't sanction it. As it states in the rule of Religion:

Being crude isn't acceptable. We aren't demanding the level of decorum you'd see on an evening news broadcast, but let's not overdo it.

Hey, I actually just responded to your complaint regarding KZ-Religion. It didn't even cross my mind to check this section, but I happened to open it by accident. You filed that complaint at 6:16 PM, and now it's already 8:00 PM. Let’s not get carried away or make a mountain out of a molehill regarding digital space. This whole thing was unnecessary—you really could have, and should have, just waited a bit for a response.

Edward Murphy4 said:Cute... But let's be real: people can't help but argue their points, which is basically just a fancy way of trying to convince you. It’s rarely just about laying out reasons—it’s usually a subtle power play to prove their logic is tighter, smarter, or just better than yours. Basically, it's an ego trip wrapped in an argument.

Look, of course we argue our points during a debate. And sure, believing the Earth is flat is technically an "opinion," but that doesn't mean anyone is going to blindly accept it as truth. There’s no such thing as "respecting" a bad opinion; the only thing you can actually respect is the person speaking.

Jason Gonzalez7 said:What does "accepting different opinions" actually mean?

Is it just liberalism, an ideology of tolerance, or simply leveling the playing field in our digital democracy?

What does it truly mean to "accept" something in this context?

And what qualifies as a "different" opinion—does it mean things that look similar but aren't necessarily right or wrong?

Can a "wrong" opinion even be called an opinion?

We could approach this from an epistemological standpoint (though we might just end up going in circles),
we could look at it ethically or religiously (in terms of those core spiritual axioms that exist when two people truly understand one another),
we could tackle it politically, which would probably be most effective...
or we could just look at it through the lens of this forum—I'm sure many of you have been stuck in a debate where someone used this exact cliché to shut things down.

I’d say it’s more about "allowing" a different perspective to exist—you know, exercising freedom of speech or just being polite. It’s an "agree to disagree" situation. It doesn't necessarily mean you view their stance as correct, valid, or even remotely relevant.

Is a "wrong opinion" still just an opinion?

Absolutely.

Why even start a thread about something there's already a dedicated report button for? What’s the point? It’s just like what happened a little while ago in the Religion PDF section—I pointed someone toward the report icon instead. That specific post didn't have a link, so I had to go hunting for it, and the user ended up getting a strike for harassment. In my book, "harassment" means targeting someone based on their race, nationality, gender, and all that stuff. I don't see this being anything more than that (45 points).

silverviper3 said:What nonsense—that isn't even American English; those are just Turkish or Arabic loanwords.And we write those specific terms exactly for the people they were meant for, the ones who actually need to understand them.,this whole thing is just petty bickering.

What do you mean by "the ones they're meant for"? 🤔 Because any post written here is "meant for" the entire forum community. The person who started this thread about "Verses and Hadiths" understood that perfectly, which is why they explained certain terms in the opening post.

What nonsense—that isn't even American English; those are just Turkish loanwords.

Are you seriously trying to claim that American English doesn't have "Turkish loanwords"? 🤔

Kyle Carter2 said:We have a massive issue over on the Religion subforum because we can’t even understand the dialect being used by the Canadians.

It's been said that Canadian—along with Mexican—is an acceptable language here, while something like Canadian isn't. Fine, fair enough!!
BUT I honestly cannot make heads or tails of half the words being used. Take this recent post, for example:

A certain Person is intentionally bolding their words just to show why they can't understand the post and why they can't even join the debate.

The topic itself is titled "Ayats and Hadiths," and when I asked if the title could be translated into English (just like how the Mexican titles on the Religion subforum get translated into English), I got told by one member that terms like "ayat" and "hadith" actually exist in the English language. That’s news to me!
Now, when I talk about English grammar and vocabulary, I mean one of our three main regional dialects.
But words like hadith, takbir, sadaqah, tasbih, shahada... I've never heard those in my life.

Honestly, I'd understand Canadian being banned here much faster than I'd accept this version of Canadian!

Back when I started that thread about Islam under the working title "Djinn" (you know, like Islamic demons), I made sure to write in clear, standard English so everyone could follow me. I even went out of my way to avoid slang or foreign loanwords. Yet, the Muslim members on the Religion subforum don't care at all; they just write in their own (to me, incomprehensible) Canadian, dumping Arabic and Turkish loanwords everywhere you look.

I’m putting this out there again: how long are we supposed to put up with foreign languages and unintelligible slang on this forum?
When are we going to set a standard that everything must be written in proper English? As an American, I understand and speak all our regional variations and can adapt to anything, but this situation with the Canadian dialect has become nauseating and unreadable. They aren't trying to adapt; they're just doing whatever they want.

Edit: I just noticed this in the same post:

Luckily, this guy doesn't know it, but if he did, he'd probably be writing in Arabic!
It happens so often that posts are practically overflowing with Arabic conversation, so where are the language standards for this site???

The Canadian language is understandable to us, but you're absolutely right regarding certain specific words or terms (which usually make up the bulk of the post). It would be helpful if people provided explanations in parentheses, just like the thread starter did in his opening post. Regarding your question, that was already covered in the rules, so you shouldn't have needed to ask what "ayat" or "hadith" meant since the OP provided translations right at the start. However, you are correct about the quoted post.

A plea to the forum users on this thread.

Because of all this, I’m putting in a formal request to have my probation lifted. I give you my word—you won't have any trouble with me. Especially if things start looking up regarding the religious studies program. Actually, I promise I'll stay on track even if nothing changes at all...

We're dropping the probation, but please, take this seriously: if you slip back into those old habits, it’s going to trigger a permanent disciplinary action. And this time, there won't be a second chance.

Welcome back! 😬

Gary Sanchez88 said:1. Honestly, I don't lose sleep over "moral rights." Morality is such an abstract concept anyway—it’s basically just a social convention.
2. It’s incredibly easy to twist someone else's words.

This forum is such a goldmine for inspiration and finding solid info. I've noticed how certain news sites pick up topics and articles from here almost immediately whenever they pop up in history, science, or even fringe theory sections, and suddenly, nobody says a word. Why should I stress out or worry if I happen to share a spark of an idea? It's actually pretty easy to make some cash or get work done when you have places like this where people just pour out their thoughts and do the heavy lifting for you.

Totally agree. You can just flip a few words around and call it a day. (And by "morally," I mean those legal protections, like having the right to decide when, where, and how your work is published, or the right to protest if someone mangles your creation...)

That’s why I say it: I feel like the forum itself, as the publisher, holds a sort of copyright over these posts, especially since there's a footer that clearly states copyright.🤷

goldengull3 said:Looking at this topic—it’s actually pretty fascinating. I’m currently diving into the Berne Convention, and it got me thinking. If we were to view a site like Reddit as an electronic publication, then the platform itself would technically have the right to protect authors' posts under a pseudonym, even if those authors aren't widely known figures.

Article 15.

Under the Berne Convention, there’s a pretty straightforward rule for creators: if you want to be legally recognized as the owner of your literary or artistic work—and more importantly, have the standing to sue anyone infringing on those rights in any EU court—you just need to make sure your name is clearly attached to the piece in the usual way. This applies even if you’re working under a pen name, provided that pseudonym is unmistakable and leaves no doubt about who you actually are. It’s like having a verified badge on social media; it establishes your identity so the law can protect you.

Think of it this way: unless there's some specific legal proof to the contrary, the person or company whose name is credited on a film is officially considered the producer. It’s pretty straightforward—if their name is up there on the screen during the credits, they're the ones holding the title.

When you’re dealing with anonymous works or those where the author uses a pseudonym—and they don't fall under that first category we just talked about—the publisher listed on the work is essentially treated as the face of the author. Unless there’s some solid evidence to the contrary, the publisher steps into that role, holding the reins to protect and enforce all those copyright interests. It’s a bit like how a major studio might represent a creator's rights behind the scenes. Of course, this whole setup changes the second the author decides to step out from behind the curtain, reveals their true identity, and provides the proof to back it up. At that point, the publisher's proxy status ends.

Check out this PDF link regarding the Berne Convention. It’s a deep dive into the legal framework governing copyright and intellectual property rights. For anyone interested in how creative works are protected internationally, this is pretty essential reading.

To be honest, there isn’t really any legal precedent here yet—not even in common law systems, as far as I know—when it comes to protecting the copyright of posts made on internet forums.

Like I mentioned before, copyright is actually acquired automatically. The general rule is that the copyright holder is the individual—the person behind the screen—who originally created the work. However, when we’re talking about forum posts, we should probably look at it through the lens of a publisher, much like how a newspaper operates. It really comes down to two distinct sides of the coin: first, there’s the moral right, which stays with the author forever and can't be signed away; then, there’s the economic right, which is transferable. By agreeing to the site's terms of service, a user is essentially granting the platform permission to use their content. Think about it—the forum needs the right to edit, move, or even delete a post. If that weren't the case, a post owner could swoop in at any moment and demand everything be wiped clean, which would basically turn the whole thing into a legal nightmare similar to a strict copyright lawsuit.

I recall some user on a subreddit asking to have a huge chunk of her old posts deleted—I think it was all her poetry or something along those lines. If we’re looking at this through a legal lens, you could argue that the platform itself acts as a sort of holder for those copyrights (though we shouldn't confuse that with being liable for what's actually written there). Still, it remains to be seen if we’ll ever see actual legal precedents established around this issue... as if we needed any more headaches.😁

Nicholas King said:In other words, are you telling me there's a rule in place that nobody actually bothers to follow? 😕

Ex-actly😳

Over in our Religion sub-section, under our rules, we have it set up like this:

4) All posts must be written clearly and intelligibly, using the English language and script.
If you're quoting someone or linking to a text in a foreign language, you absolutely have to provide an English translation. You don't need to go word-for-word for longer pieces, but it's mandatory to at least provide a summary covering the points essential to the discussion.

However, even here, we still run into users who write using different regional dialects, for instance 🤷

frozenowl3 said:I’ve been following the posts here quite closely—the ones that actually get to the point. I haven't felt the need to jump in and reply to everything, but I have been paying attention. It’s been helpful to sit back and soak up all this new information as it comes in.

You know what your problem actually is: Do you honestly think I’m just some troll you can shake off? Is that what this is? You're all trying to push me out. It’s honestly wild to me that you all find it so unbelievable that a lesbian would actually want to step foot inside a church here in America!

Even in this thread, I’m running into nothing but pure intolerance. It’s honestly shameful. It makes me feel sick to my stomach, thinking about the kind of environment I have to live in.

Look, why don't you just set up a dedicated space for the queer community? Give us a corner where we can actually talk to one another without all this noise. If someone decides to fly in and start preaching about "cures" or dumping their views on illnesses and stuff like that, just hit them with a permanent ban. It’s simple: kick them out, and you won't have to deal with these kinds of headaches ever again.

Brenda Cook4, if you honestly believe that not a single person deserves a warning, then you shouldn't be in charge of moderating this place.

See you later.

Honestly, I feel like every single thing you post just reinforces my point, but you’re totally off base if you think there's anything "incredible" about an LGBTQ+ person wanting to attend church. It's not like anyone is out here trying to "fix" them or anything. The truth is, you just don't care. You aren't actually looking for answers; you're just going through the motions. And when it comes to intolerance? Let's be real—you're pretty intolerant yourself. One look at your posts and it's clear: there's a lot of aggression there.

frozenowl3 said:If you all know how much I value fairness, does that mean 99% of this thread is headed for a red card because of off-topic chatter, or am I actually going to have to start quoting the rulebook?

I’ve only even scratched the surface here—maybe 30% of the topic at most—mostly because after the first couple of pages, it just turns into an absolute sea of spam. If you honestly think you’re dealing with some idiot, you’re dead wrong. This isn't right. People are getting banned for things that are perfectly harmless, yet this garbage is being allowed to stay? Seriously? Am I supposed to just sit here and take this kind of nonsense and harassment? Between the chaos on the road and now this, I feel like there's nowhere left to catch a break.

Don't go overboard here. Honestly, those posts you linked don't even come close to warranting a ban. You started a thread in the Religion section specifically asking Catholics what they should do if they’re gay—basically asking how that denomination and their concept of God view the situation. Look, I get it. If someone starts calling for violence, spreading intolerance, or stripping people of their basic humanity, then yeah, they deserve a sanction. But if a believer responds to your question by saying, "That isn't in line with our faith, it's a sin," what exactly are we supposed to do about that? That's just an opinion within the context of the discussion.

Spam? No way, man. Like I told you before, none of your posts have even attempted to dive into any kind of theological debate. When I brought up that moment where you mentioned you hadn't really read the Bible, your response was simply that it felt premature and that the Bible doesn't contain everything.
If this isn't spam, I honestly have no idea what is. You’re posting this under the Religion section and asking questions specifically directed at Catholics—it just feels out of place.

Look, if you actually want to have a real conversation here, you’ve got to meet me halfway. Try to dial back that defensive tone—it’s hard to get anywhere when the walls are up like that.

To be honest, I can't help but wonder if this whole thread is just one big troll attempt—I’m really not convinced it isn't. But, if you aren't just messing with us, you actually have some solid responses and questions waiting for you on the last page. Let's try to get back to the heart of what you were asking. Why don't you share a bit more about God? Try to explain your own faith (especially since you mentioned you've "never read the Bible"). If you're being sincere, take a more theological approach to the question, much like how it's framed in that religion PDF.

I’ve been following this thread since the very beginning because, honestly, it’s just brilliant—totally out of the blue. I’m sticking with it, and I just have to say: you guys living with schizophrenia are easily the "most normal" group (if you can even call it that!) I’ve encountered in my Psychology studies. You seem to be the most upbeat crowd, too, and definitely the least likely to spend all day complaining.😁 Sending much love to everyone. This might not mean much to anyone else, but I just felt like I had to get it out there.

Larry Wilson5 said:Yes, if I’m following correctly, the intellect has its own mechanism that influences patterns of will.
Could that mechanism actually be a susceptibility to patterns—essentially abandoning the speech of the will?
Could this lead to a total disconnect from the will, resulting in actions that work against survival, whether it's our own or the environment's?
And how does Psychology view the possibility of something coming into being, or how patterns persist... I ask because I've been reading about patterns in the books by Carlos Castaneda, but perhaps that subject matter isn't appropriate here.
Also... elsewhere, in esotericism, acting mechanically is seen as a sign of following an unconscious reality. Is the intellect recognized as an "unconscious" mind, or just something that makes conscious compromises?
The "speech" of the will should be what follows necessary survival; every organ responds to that will by giving its all in a given situation. It seems only at the level of the ego is such a disconnect possible—making a decision to the detriment of survival while knowing it is so.

So, what exactly is self-control? Is it resisting patterns or respecting them?
Are there patterns that act as guardians, authorities of the will that protect us? I suspect they don't exist... I wonder how a psychologist would approach this story.

Through sheer will, you create behavioral patterns for specific situations. But yes, you can absolutely make decisions that harm yourself or others when that self-control finally snaps. In my view, Psychology classifies that as irrational behavior. Self-control operates along the lines of information, acquired knowledge, and the value systems we build during our development and socialization.