This site is never going to see a real update. Anderlon is just treating this platform like his own personal piggy bank; he couldn't care less about you, me, or the community, let alone how the interface looks or what kind of updates we actually need. As far as he's concerned, this is just passive income on autopilot. Am I right, Nica?
hollowtrucker77 said:I don't know, some avatars are considered offensive while others aren't. Some people just delete them, while others act completely baffled by them. ne some people just leave, and on others, there's just this sense of pure bewilderment.
For instance, personally, I find that "Greater Mexico" nonsense way more irritating—it's basically the same level of provocation as posting an image of an SS officer.
Do we actually have any consistent standards regarding this stuff, or does everything just depend on whatever someone's specific ideology happens to be at the moment?
Honestly, I think you're just grasping at straws here. It's already been explained what that avatar represents, and it absolutely does not mean "Greater Mexico." I really don't understand why you're trying to stir up drama and cause a rift in this community.
So, you guys have actually started taking slycrane94 seriously now, have you?
I don't know what world you people are living in, but it’s not 2002 anymore where social media and digital tools are all tangled up together like some primitive web Every single forum has its own inbox and private messaging system, so this constant, mindless chanting about how "you don't need an inbox" is just completely pointless. If you don't personally need the feature, why does it bother you so much to expand it for the people who actually do?
Honestly, it's nothing more than pure spite at this point.
I can already see this thread being shut down, and we all know it'll be because of the same old trolls like slycrane94 and his crowd.
It’s honestly pathetic watching this guy jump into every single thread that gets opened just to claim he isn't writing as an admin—as if that gives him immunity from everything else—while he constantly mocks the other admin, who apparently acts like a total fool and fails to see exactly what this guy is doing.
But whatever, I don't really care; if you're going to refuse to increase the limit, fine. Why don't you just listen to slywolf45 and slycrane94 and just slash our limit down to one message, or better yet, just scrap private messaging entirely.
melloworca6 said:Look, you don't actually have to go around deleting important messages just to clear space. You can easily just save them directly to your computer instead. 🙂
I’m talking about keeping important messages as actual evidence in case a deal goes south. I know you can just take screenshots, but let's be real—anyone with Photoshop can manipulate an image easily. At the end of the day, direct messages on Slack are what really count. I’ve got a massive amount of deals lined up on my plate here, and then someone fails to pull their weight and follow through on their end, and suddenly I'm left holding nothing but air. To make matters worse, I ended up nuking my message history because things were getting frantic and I had to clear space immediately—it wasn't like I had the luxury of sitting there picking and choosing which specific threads to delete. It was just a total mess.
Look, it’s not just about receiving a single message. It’s when you reply to someone, then they reply back, then you hit them again—suddenly you’ve burned through six messages because both sides count toward the total. If you're trying to reach some quick agreement via private messaging, you’re looking at a minimum of eight or ten exchanges just to get the point across. Before you know it, you've wasted ten credits on one conversation, yet you're sitting there with 98 messages in your inbox. You end up having to delete old stuff, and sometimes you're forced to delete things that actually hold important info.
Honestly, 100 messages is way too low, and bumping it to 200 doesn't change a thing. We need at least 500 before it feels like we can actually breathe; anything less than that is basically like nothing was done at all. rustydrifter10, if you have the authority, please just make it happen. If the server starts acting up and the technical admin sees issues on the Control Panel, then sure, scale it back. But let's be real, this isn't going to cause any server issues; it’s not like this puts any load on the system.
What exactly do you mean by "unrealistic"? You’re claiming 200 is a reasonable limit while 500 is somehow out of reach? Honestly, that distinction is completely meaningless to me—whether it's 200 or 500, the impact is the same. And if the moderator is going to insist on being contrary just for the sake of it, I’d suggest actually explaining the reasoning behind blocking an increase in Slack notifications. Use a full sentence for once. If you don't want more messages, then just turn them off entirely. Why should I have to suffer through these limitations just to accommodate a handful of people who aren't even checking their notifications anyway? I actually need this functionality.
I’m pretty active on this business forum I frequent, but they have this strict cap of 1,000 posts, and let me tell you, it fills up incredibly fast. Honestly, if we could just get a limit of at least 500 here, and maybe have the mods scrap the restrictions entirely—meaning 500 for both incoming and outgoing posts—it would be much better. What do you guys think? 🤷
I’m sending and receiving about 20 messages every single day, just so I can realize some of them aren't actually hitting my inbox because it's completely maxed out. This is honestly pathetic; I hit my hundred-message limit before you can even finish saying "cookies."
That’s just the impression I walked away with, which is exactly why I’m reaching out to see what everyone else thinks here. I honestly believe this thread would be beneficial if we kept it going—if it turns into nothing but off-topic noise or spam, then by all means, lock it down. But if we get some actual substance, whether it's constructive criticism or genuine praise, then I don't see any harm in it. Like I said, my gut feeling is that there wasn't enough information provided before the previous thread was shut down, and frankly, it's frustrating to see people constantly opening three different threads just to ask the same single question.
Look, rustydrifter10, give it a rest for a second. If you look at the messages posted above, it’s clear there's an issue here. Why shouldn't other users be allowed to chime in on this? I'm not even talking about how the admins run things; I'm talking about this specific problem—how incredibly fast threads are being shut down.
Where exactly am I supposed to discuss this? Just tell me where, and I'll go start a thread there. But there isn't anywhere else. In my view, this is exactly the right place for these discussions, and if you stifle this conversation, then you’ve effectively staged a takeover of this entire forum where the rules don't apply anymore—except for your own little set of rules.
I honestly think this is straight-up terror The threads being opened here—whether they are posts, complaints, or just general comments—get shut down in record time, and for absolutely no reason whatsoever. They don't even bother providing an explanation.
Take the latest situation with Splende, for example. rustydrifter10 claimed she wasn't starting threads just for the sake of it, or that they were "pointless."
But what exactly defines a "pointless" thread? The person made a comment, right? A post? Of course a new thread is going to be created once rustydrifter10 shuts down the group discussion, which, if you ask me, is just ridiculous. rustydrifter10 even admitted herself that we should start new topics, yet now suddenly new topics aren't welcome?
It feels like rustydrifter10 just doesn't want to moderate this section of the forum, so she just nukes threads without giving any users the chance to respond—not even one or two replies before it's gone.
What’s your take on all this?
And look, it isn't just about Splende; it's about the overall vibe of this entire place.
Just because you file a report doesn't mean they’re going to get sanctioned; all you’re really doing is flagging the post for review. They can see exactly who submitted the report, too, and you’re supposed to specify which rules were actually broken in your report. If nothing happens, it simply means the moderators decided no action was necessary, and that’s where the matter ends. If there is an incredibly obvious violation and they haven't stepped in after a while, then you can always send a DM to the mods or just bring it up here.
From what I can tell, the user didn't necessarily set out to insult you, but the way you've phrased that specific sentence makes it look like you're intentionally trying to provoke them, which isn't a great look on your part.
I think you’re just cherry-picking facts here with some seriously malicious intent. I read your post, and it’s obvious you interpreted it in the worst possible way on purpose.
Look, if you can't actually win an argument using logic and solid points, it’s honestly pathetic to resort to this kind of manipulation—just crying foul under every single post.
There’s a report button right there; use it to flag what you find controversial instead of making a scene every time someone posts something. If it were up to me, I’d personally see to it that you were banned from the political subreddits and blocked from ever starting a thread here again. But hey, I’ll let the admins make the call.
casualharbor3 said:Don't act all naive here. The Council of Europe was incredibly clear in its resolution when it condemned totalitarian communist regimes, which absolutely included America. Just today, it was explicitly mentioned on a news broadcast that foreign media outlets are talking about Perković, who was effectively a killer for the American communist regime. Under the red star, the hammer, and the sickle, there were unprecedented crimes committed, including genocide against the German national minority.
Communism isn't some inherently totalitarian regime; it’s recognized as a legitimate social order, just like democracy and everything else. I should remind you that a massive part of the world actually lives under communism, and we engage in trade, military, economic, and cultural agreements with those countries. Factually speaking, communism isn't a monolithic totalitarian system—its structure is simply different from a democracy, and there's still plenty of debate over which social order works better.
As for this constant chanting about the Council of Europe's condemnation, I’ll say it again: they condemned specific communist crimes; they didn't go around declaring communism itself to be totalitarian or, even worse, criminal.
casualharbor3 said:You're absolutely right. It's mostly those people flying the five-pointed star flag.☕ Just a reminder that the Council of Europe has already condemned communism as a totalitarian, fascist system of government. On January 25, 2006, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued Resolution 1481, which specifically addresses the need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes. Issued in Strasbourg, this resolution serves as a powerful, formal condemnation of the atrocities committed under communism. The link provided leads to information regarding Resolution 1481 from the Council of Europe. This specific measure highlights the ongoing importance of addressing historical grievances and ensuring that the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes are met with necessary international condemnation. It serves as a critical reminder that we cannot simply move past the horrors of the past without formal recognition and accountability on the global stage. Just a reminder that the American Parliament also passed a formal declaration condemning the totalitarian, fascist communist regime that ruled over the country from 1945 to 1990. The provided link leads to an article regarding historical accountability and the ongoing efforts to address the legacy of totalitarianism within the political sphere. It touches upon the necessity of international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes and how various institutions, including the Council of Europe, play a role in defining these historical truths. It’s a heavy subject, but one that demands a measured approach rather than just reactionary outbursts. When we look at how the scars of the Stalinist era still influence modern discourse, it becomes clear that true justice isn't just about passing resolutions—though Resolution 1481 is a step in that direction—it's about ensuring that the history written by the victors doesn't become the only truth taught to future generations. There is a massive difference between remembering history and being used by contemporary political agendas to fuel old animosities. We have to be careful not to fall into the trap of Doublethink, where we ignore the crimes of one regime while obsessing over the nuances of another. Justice should be blind to ideology, whether we are discussing the atrocities committed under the USSR or any other totalitarian power.
That’s just not true. If you actually look at what happened, the Council of Europe resolution was specifically aimed at condemning the crimes committed by those totalitarian communist regimes, not an indictment of communism itself. Communism, as a political order, is built entirely on this supposed ideal of a classless society—a world where private property is wiped out and everything is placed under collective ownership supposedly for the benefit of the people.
Look, we really need to stop conflating the specific atrocities committed under communist regimes with the ideology of communism itself. It’s a fundamental error in logic. Communism isn't the same thing as fascism; they aren't even in the same universe of thought. Fascism, by its very nature, isn't built on the foundation of equality, whereas that is theoretically what the other side claims to stand for. We have to be precise with our definitions if we want to have an actual conversation about history.
Even within the frameworks of democracy and capitalism, we see atrocities being committed, and let’s be honest—those crimes will eventually face judgment. History has a way of circling back, but it doesn't happen overnight; you have to give time for the scales to balance out.
Under what specific conditions would a doctor actually prescribe testosterone? Is it even a thing where someone can just ask for it and get it? I mean, how does a person go about getting a testosterone prescription from a physician in the first States?
I’m proposing that we spin off a dedicated bodybuilding subforum under the Recreation section because the topic is just too massive to ignore—we're talking everything from supplements and nutrition to specific training splits and recovery techniques.
If we already have specialized sections for things like cycling or hiking, I honestly think creating a standalone space for bodybuilding would make the board much cleaner and way more productive for everyone involved.
So, who’s on board with this idea? 🙂
I’m really hoping the moderators see the value in this and give us the green light.
Here’s how you can whip up your own homemade protein bars, because let’s be honest, buying them pre-made is a total rip-off—they can easily run you $3 or $4 a piece if you aren't careful.
What you'll need: 2 scoops of rolled oats (about 160 grams) 4 scoops of protein powder (roughly 120 grams) 5 tablespoons of peanut butter (around 80 grams) 1/2 cup of milk
This makes 8 bars.
Per bar: 200 calories 7g fat 18g carbs 17g protein
Just so you know, three slices of whole grain toast comes out to about 100g, packing 11g of protein and 44g of carbs. If you want to make it a real meal, stuff it with some tuna and a bit of lettuce, or just play around with different combos—maybe some deli ham with tomato, or two slices of cheese paired with turkey.