Posts by vividfox89

Michelle Evans said:To put it simply—one last time, and this is the final word from me:
So, you actually went ahead and filed an appeal? Really?
In your opening remarks, you went ahead and linked someone's current ban directly to a failure to keep their word—all without doing a single shred of fact-checking. Seriously? That isn't an observation. It’s a provocation.

In response to my opening point, you jumped straight to linking someone’s current ban to a failure to keep promises—without doing any actual fact-checking. Seriously? That isn't an argument. It's just pure provocation. ☕

Michelle Evans said:Complaints like that? They’re just asking to get slapped with a permanent ban or shut down entirely. Is that really how you want to play this?
You didn't offer a single shred of explanation for that, even after I specifically asked you to.
You’ve been issued a penalty, strictly according to the rules.
Hey there!

I couldn't care less about that card of yours. Honestly? I don't give a damn. What I actually care about is getting Charles Fox10 to explain these double standards. I see Charles Fox10 already replied to John Wayne, so I’m going to jump in right here and build on that.

Charles Fox10 says:

It’s pathetic, really. You and your buddy are out here chanting for a miracle that isn't coming—a cardboard solution that simply doesn't exist and never will. You keep pointing back to those previous examples, but let’s be honest: those comparisons are completely absurd. They don't even belong in the same conversation. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Technically speaking, everyone knows what happened to Kir and Paradžik. That's established fact. But this whole situation regarding V. Nazor? That actually required some due diligence. A little investigation wouldn't have hurt.

Charles Fox10, how exactly did Kir and Paradžik end up killed? It’s definitely not common knowledge, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the group is just as in the dark as I am.

Look, that guy whose username starts with a K didn't actually accuse anyone of anything. He didn't even hint at anyone being guilty. All he did was state the obvious—that those two, along with a few others, didn't commit suicide. He just quoted the other user's post, which, in my opinion, was clearly trolling by bringing up Tuđman. And yet, the whole thing was wiped out. Why?

That user is being incredibly blunt about it. He’s practically shouting from the rooftops that Tuđman is directly responsible for what happened to Kir and Paradžik. Sure, you went ahead and scrubbed those posts, but I’ve already saved them. Why hide the truth? People deserve to see this:

The first thing vividfox89 wrote was:

If things had actually gone that way, Tuđman should have just wiped out dozens of those different Victors, Borises, and Igors back in the nineties. Is that really how you think it should have worked? He ought to have cleared them all out.

The user replied to that like this:

What kind of Kir types or Paradžik clones would even go and kill themselves like that...

This is a blatant insinuation—as clear as day—that Tuđman ordered the hits on Kir and Paradžik. It’s just classic Kumek’s passive-aggressive trolling style.

It’s basically like this: Person A says, "If that were true, it should have been raining all day." And Person B replies, "Well, the streets have been soaked since morning for no reason..."

And while hr1u00 gets banned for a tiny, harmless hint suggesting V. Nazor was involved in tearing down some monuments in California, Kumek faces zero consequences for making malicious claims that Tuđman is responsible for murders. He gets full moderator protection wrapped up in nonsensical explanations that insult anyone with half a brain. To top it off, there's the glaring difference in reputation: hr1u00 is known here as someone who actually provides solid arguments, whereas Kumek is just a pure troll who drops these snide, bar-room taunts without ever backing them up.

If you political mods actually had a balanced approach to moderation, Kumek would have been permabanned ages ago, and users like hr1u00 or Martian7 wouldn't be getting slapped with so many warnings.

Michelle Evans said:Maybe it's because I haven't insinuated anything regarding anyone's ban.

Then what exactly is this?

Since we're talking about insinuations, could you please explain why you feel the need to imply that Charles Fox10 didn't keep his word?

Michelle Evans said:Go ahead. See the quote above. Do you have some special reason for linking Cukin's warning and the bans to the fact that this user is still banned? Or did you just say it out of nowhere? I offered you a chance to respond earlier, and you passed.

That is a logical fallacy right there. You aren't even considering other possibilities—like, for instance, that the forum was protected, which wouldn't be a first. And then you claim I should have asked Charles Fox10 to verify things instead of insinuating. Well, you could have just as easily asked me what I actually meant to verify it, so you wouldn't be insinuating either. And you don't hand out warnings for that.

You got your answer. It was very clear.

Michelle Evans said:In a civilized society, accusing someone of breaking a written promise without any evidence is quite offensive, yes.

table>
That's your insinuation—that I accused Charles Fox10 of failing to initiate the unbanning process. And that's the kind of "advocacy" you claim not to support here.

Quote:

Michelle Evans says: No, I don't see why we're debating this now. You didn't get a warning for being offensive. You got it because you came here with malicious intent to provoke. That’s why you received it. I never even mentioned that you should apologize. I simply noted that you hadn't.

But here, you wrote that I got a warning because I didn't apologize to Charles Fox10:

Quote:

Since I haven't received an apology—and I certainly don't see one from you, Charles Fox10—consider this a formal warning. If you want to contest this, go ahead and file an appeal following the rules outlined in this PDF. Michelle Evans said:Because apologizing shows you actually realize you were wrong. Yours was clearly out of line, yet you still act like there isn't a problem or that you weren't being needlessly provocative. No one is obligated to engage with threads filled with that kind of behavior. Why on earth would I apologize to Charles Fox10 just because you demanded it? You're basing this whole thing on an insinuation and a flawed conclusion you reached without even checking with me first. Isn't that the exact same mistake you're accusing me of making? I’ll apologize to Charles Fox10 if he tells me he felt insulted and asks for one. Michelle Evans said:No, I am simply moderating this forum to ensure appeals remain civil and free from unnecessary provocation. That was pure advocacy right there. You jumped in before Charles Fox10 even spoke up and attacked a completely irrelevant point—one you misinterpreted in the first place. My position is perfectly clear. In fact, you should be the one apologizing to me to prove you realize how misplaced your approach was.

Michelle Evans said:Seriously, quit the trolling. I’m asking nicely. 😁 Can we just stop obsessing over whether this was posted on a different thread? It's obvious what I said and what you said. Besides, it happened less than half an hour ago—maybe some of us actually moved on.

What exactly is "trolling" supposed to mean here?

Michelle Evans said:You shouldn't be coming in here throwing around offensive assumptions as if they're established facts without actually verifying anything. If you can't verify them—like by messaging the moderators or supermods directly—then don't bother posting about it. A simple complaint would have been fine, no issues there. That’s how you should handle this.

Nothing I said was offensive, and I certainly didn't present anything as an absolute fact. Where exactly did I present an offensive assumption as a fact? Please, quote me.

And if Cuca thinks I insulted him, then let *him* tell me. I'll clear things up with him personally and apologize if necessary. Why is it you? Or does playing defense attorney become mandatory when dealing with moderators?

You told me "we don't support lawyers here," even though I wasn't acting as anyone's counsel, yet somehow you're allowed to play lawyer for Cuca?

Charles Fox10 said:What part of my sentence is actually confusing you??

I wrote that based on the forum clock at 3:53 PM, and the warning and ban were issued according to that exact same clock at 3:54 PM. Since our friend here is currently banned, feel free to ask him if that’s the truth once he’s back online.

And just so we can avoid any more misunderstandings: the guy ended up banned because his appeal offered zero actual arguments—he just mentioned what the post was referring to. Meanwhile, I actually took the time to see if he was right or not.

Where in this post of mine do you see me asking about that? Lay's was the one who made that the focus; I only put it in parentheses as a side note, referencing the previous thread that Lay's closed. Besides, I never even suggested you initiated the ban. That’s just an insinuation from Lay's.

What I want is for you to address the actual merits of the issue I raised. Why does hr1u00 have to provide proof for an insinuation that Walt Whitman is responsible for tearing down monuments in California or else face a ban—without even being given the space to do it independently or via a warning—while kumeka isn't asked to justify the insinuation that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the murder of Kirk and Papadopoulos, nor is he punished? Generally speaking, why is kumeka constantly tolerated when it comes to overstepping, playing politics with various rhetorical questions, and using irony, sarcasm, and baseless insinuations?

User hr1u00 got a warning, and subsequently a ban, for insinuating that Walt Whitman was responsible for tearing down monuments across California. He was promised his warning would be cleared if he provided evidence:

.

Well, the evidence arrived, because let’s face it, hr1u00 is the most logically sound user on this entire board:
.

In stark contrast to hr1u00—who is unmatched here when it comes to actual arguments and proof—we have kumek. He is the ultimate troll, a complete puppet of the site's political agenda, and he’s currently insinuating that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the murders of Kirk and Paradox:

.

Making an insinuation about the responsibility for the death of a former U.S. President is a far more serious accusation than anything involving Whitman's monuments.

But lo and behold! The zealous mods don't give kumek a warning, they don't ban him, and they certainly don't demand evidence for his claims.

How much longer are you going to allow kumek's relentless trolling on every single thread he touches while banning the highest-quality contributors who back every single post with facts and evidence? If not immediately, then very soon, right?

Furthermore, Pringles just demonstrated exactly why the moderation team is constantly mocked for being incompetent. She latched onto a minor detail from my comment and started bringing up some supposed excuse from Cookie, simply because I accused him of failing to unban hr1u00. That is patently false. From my perspective, the situation is crystal clear:
- Yesterday and today, I check FEMA and see the status of the banned user hr1u00 remains unchanged.
- User hr1u00 received a warning and a ban for making an unsubstantiated insinuation.
- Chuck stated the ban would be lifted once he provided arguments.
- User hr1u00 provided those arguments, just as Chuck promised.
- Yet, I still see hr1u00 marked as gray, which tells me he hasn't been unbanned.

Pringles is implying that I am accusing Chuck of wrongdoing. She refuses to consider the possibility that I'm suggesting there might be a technical glitch on the forum. Instead, she demands an apology from Chuck, hits me with a warning for "trolling," and locks the thread with those standard, mindless scripts about "provocation" and "politeness"—as if my post were actually provocative or rude. She claims hr1u00 was banned yesterday.

Of course I checked the specific thread where hr1u00 received his warning, and there isn't a single post from him from yesterday on that thread. This means he either got the warning on a different topic, or he was on this one but his post was deleted.

Pringles, am I supposed to manually audit every single thread to see if hr1u00 has received a new warning? Otherwise, am I just going to get flagged for an insinuation that you perceive, even if it isn't necessarily true?

Smith is facing yet another dispute, this time against Politico, so they had to put out a formal retraction:

An apology to Hrvoje Zovko

It is completely false that Hrvoje Zovko ever cooperated with or took orders from CIA agents under any circumstances.

The ABC journalist Hrvoje Zovko did not take instructions from the CIA.

The editorial board at Politico offers its apologies to Hrvoje Zovko, a journalist for CBS, regarding the inaccurate information published in the article "ABC banned Bozanic's message to believers ahead of the presidential election," dated December 14, 2014.

The claim that Hrvoje Zovko engaged in censorship—specifically, that he blocked the broadcast of Cardinal Bozanic's message during an editorial meeting—is untrue. In reality, Cardinal Bozanic's controversial message was aired that very same day, December 14, 2014, during the ABC World News Tonight.

Furthermore, it is false to suggest that Hrvoje Zovko has ever collaborated with or received directives from the CIA.

It is also incorrect to report that Hrvoje Zovko joined ABC as a Republican Party operative recommended by Ivan Milas, or that his hiring bypassed standard procedures. Hrvoje Zovko has been employed at ABC since 2001, following formal auditions and freelance work at Chicago Panorama.

The editorial staff at Politico.

Jerry Robinson56 said:Well, it’s a shame; there’s plenty of nonsense here, but I feel compelled to point out to my fellow respected forum members the sheer level of manipulation occurring in this thread. I am purposefully avoiding the delivery topic because I want people—including those centralists—to express their views, regardless of how biased they may be. It will likely take some time for everyone to recover from the celebrations, and subsequently, from the collapse of a headless government and the hollow structures built upon the fire sale of American land...
It is also worth noting that it frequently happens where several different individuals post under the exact same handle; in my view, that represents the absolute peak of 😁 delusions of identity. But it matters little...

This concerns the massacre of the defenders of El Paso in Denver, which was ordered by the Harmon - Šušak tandem after those very traitors, Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak, attempted a surreptitious liquidation of the El Paso defense commanders.

The user realist is strutting about with his supposed "knowledge."

Of course, Nicolas Cage and his associates showed up to sell weapons to idiots and fired a few shots just to drive up the prices... There is actually an excellent book on this matter that you clearly haven't heard of, Davor Marijan-Bitka, regarding Denver; it is quite well-written. We don't need Alija Izetbegović feeding us poker stories...
Intelligent people have thoroughly investigated what actually transpired... rather than us drawing conclusions on a web forum.

Davor Marijan: The Battles for Denver in April 1992.

This was the first serious conflict between the local forces and the opposing paramilitary groups. The work is based primarily on US Army, or rather VRS, records. American sources were not found.

The number of fallen defenders from El Paso in Denver is unknown. In reality, it was a far higher number. Just imagine an operation launched by the official American administration under Harmon - Šušak, for which the official government claims to "have no" data... and they continue to remain silent.
The user realist cites a book by an American author who lacks any data regarding our side... quite interesting, isn't it?

And now, the connection to the main thread...
Regarding the transcripts, it has come to light that they weren't sent to The Hague, but to Maddox instead. Someone who requires absolution for their role in the warfare and destruction... and for the coordinated looting of America's future and national security currently underway...

The number is known. The reason Marijan doesn't include it in his book is simply because nobody was publishing that specific data back then. Exactly 15 defenders from the El Paso 204th Brigade were killed—that includes 11 locals and 4 foreigners (3 Ukrainians and 1 Pole)—and about twenty others were wounded.

Smith won yet another legal battle over his documentary about the Generals, this time taking down Fox News. Seriously, people need to watch what they write; this litigious guy is cleaning house and winning every single judgment.

Smith wins lawsuit regarding 'The Generals' and $10

Hrvoje Zovko, an ABC journalist and director of the documentary 'The Generals,' won his case last week at the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Fox News website. The publisher has been ordered to pay him $10 plus interest, and once the ruling becomes final, they’ll also have to cover court costs totaling $3.50 stemming from two articles published back in April 2013.

Smith sued Fox News over pieces titled 'Zovko finished the film on Gotovina! ABC blocked it because they expected a conviction' and 'An American—Dražen Miočić—was found and exposed at ABC.' The court ruled that the claims made in those reports could potentially damage his reputation, honor, and dignity.

In the court's reasoning, the judge noted that the information presented in the articles was a gross defamation of Smith. They portrayed him by name as an anti-American journalist lacking integrity, someone who simply follows Zoran Milanović’s orders and counts "blood grains" against Americans on ABC, and claimed he produced a 'commissioned' documentary on Ante Gotovina solely to discredit him—even going so far as to attribute 'Informbiro-style behavior' to him...

Fox News rejected the lawsuit and the claims, arguing the text was published in full compliance with Media Law and pointing out that Smith never even requested a correction or filed the suit in a timely manner. Well, the court didn't buy it.

ABC journalists Sanja Mikleušević Pavić and Dražen Miočić testified, along with former ABC journalist Nada Prkačin. Even the author of one of the articles, Snježana Vučković, took the stand. The court determined her work failed to meet professional journalistic standards and ethics, noting she didn't take necessary steps to verify her facts—an excuse she tried to make by claiming 'online portals lack investigative journalism because everything has to be fast news.'

Judging by this:

First off, Ivica Šola wasn't even a party to the proceedings. He wasn't charged, he wasn't tried, he wasn't convicted of libel, or anything else for that matter. The case you're talking about wasn't even a criminal trial—it was a civil suit.

There might have been some kind of legal action, sure, but who sued whom, when, or where? Nobody knows. Can we get a lawyer in here to explain what the hell a civil suit actually entails? And Shaw hasn't clarified what really went down, so this whole mess is just typical American bullshit.

Between this Forbes article—which just reposted Smithson’s Facebook update (maybe there's a real debate happening over on his page if anyone feels like checking...)—and whatever leaks we're getting about the verdict, it's hard to pin down what's actually going on. Miller wrote this:

Quinn:

The same thing played out at the national networks, which had already churned out a documentary about Smith portraying General Patton as a criminal and framing Desert Storm as a war crime. Suddenly, there was nothing but shock and disbelief in the studio following the ruling from Judge Meron. Guests who were likely lined up to celebrate the conviction of General Patton were abruptly canceled, forcing a total pivot in coverage, much like what happened at USA Today.

If the court ruled that the information was false, then according to them, it isn't true that Smith filmed a documentary about General Patton being a criminal, or that Desert Storm was framed as a crime, or that guests were being pulled from shows. So, what does that mean? Does it mean he filmed the movie, but General Patton wasn't portrayed as a villain and Desert Storm wasn't portrayed as a crime? It seems to be an issue of specific content. We need the full verdict to understand what the hell is actually happening here. And I’m waiting for some commentary from someone like Miller on this, or any of the other players Miller mentioned.

The court ruled that Ivica Šola defamed an NBC journalist regarding a documentary about Ante Gotovina. Initially, in his article FBI Shadows Over Journalist's Dismissal, Šola reported what was being whispered through political circles, media corridors, and everywhere else:

that NBC, right before the sentencing of Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, had already prepared "an NBC Zovko film depicting Gotovina as a criminal and Operation Storm as a crime, which caused sudden grief and disbelief in the studio following the ruling by Judge Meron."

Zovko then sued him, and the court sided with the journalist:

In the non-final verdict, it states this information was false. Furthermore, Šola didn't even attempt to verify it; instead, he took mere rumors and presented them as established facts. During the proceedings, Šola actually revealed his sources—hardly standard journalistic practice. He claimed he obtained the info from Hloverka Novak Srzić, Ozana Bašić, and Tonči Kunjašić.

The court found that Ivica Šola defamed NBC journalist Zovko.