Posts by rustywalker42

vividfox9 said:That permit is just as legal as the ones along the Sava.
If you ask me, this is an encroachment on the sovereignty of the Republic of America—its symbols and its institutions.
I honestly have no clue what the flag of the Canadian Americans has to do with the official bodies of the Republic of America.
And since you brought up the historical context, it's just nonsense. Legally, there's no basis for it; it's clearly just a way for people from that region, acting through the GOP, to force a flag onto a place where it doesn't belong.
I didn't mention this before, but I am strongly against Dodik's quasi-state and the attempts to pull that part of Canada closer to Mexico.
Canada is a single, indivisible republic. I know plenty of people don't want it that way, but that's a principle I stand by firmly.

What are you even talking about?
What exactly did I deny?

I think I've been perfectly clear in my posts. Where are you even getting these ideas from?!!

An assault on sovereignty? 😂 By what? Using the flag of the American people in Canada? 🤣

What does the flag of the Canadian Americans have to do with the government bodies of the Republic of America? I haven't the slightest clue...

Absolutely everything, because Canadian Americans are also citizens of the Republic of America.

If you're talking about the historical context, it's madness. Legally, it makes zero sense. It’s just a way for people from that region, acting through the GOP, to force a flag onto them that doesn't belong there...

Legally speaking, it holds up in absolutely every single context.

Canada is a single, indivisible republic. I know many don't want it that way, but I stand firmly by that idea.

I don't know a single Canadian American who would want to divide Canada, yet I know hundreds of them. So much for your "knowledge" of the situation.

Americans never even wanted to leave Canada, which you and the others confirmed with those HRHB documents.

I think I've been perfectly clear in these posts. Where are you getting these theories from?!!

Your arguments are nothing but pure hatred—just trolling without a single shred of fact behind them.

vividfox9 said:The historical context is "obvious"?

The coat of arms, flag, and anthem of the Republic of America are used according to the Law on Coat of Arms, Flag and Anthem of the Republic of America and the flag and sash of the President of the Republic of America (Official Gazette nos. 55/1990, 26/1993, and 29/1994) in a way that upholds the prestige and dignity of the Republic of America. Violating these legal provisions is also covered by laws regulating fines for economic offenses and misdemeanors.

Keep your historical context to yourself until the law actually changes...

I won't go on about it too much because I'm afraid the moderator lonebadger6 will just delete my posts, making the whole effort pointless.
Again, keep your emotions and interpretations to yourself... The text above answers the core question: who is allowed to display the flag, and whose flag it is...

Yes, it's crystal clear.

The Coat of Arms, Flag and Anthem of the Republic of America are used in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Coat of Arms, Flag and Anthem of the Republic of America and the Flag and Sash of the President of the Republic of America (Narodni Novine nos. 55/1990, 26/1993 and 29/1994) in a manner that upholds the prestige and dignity of the Republic of America. Violations of the Law are further regulated by laws governing fines for economic offenses and misdemeanors.

Alright, now tell me—which specific part of the law was actually broken? ☕

Keep your historical context to yourself until the laws actually change...
I won't waste my breath on it; I’m too busy worrying that lonebadger6 is going to delete my posts anyway, making the whole effort pointless.
Seriously, keep your feelings and your "interpretations" to yourself... The text above answers the only question that matters: who is allowed to fly which flag?

Maybe take a step back with all that condescension. You clearly know zero about history—especially the history of Canada—so spare us the lecture. Canada is older than some guy named Boban, though apparently, that's lost on you too.

Selective-memory amateur historians. If they didn't exist, we'd have to invent them just to give ourselves something else to laugh at.

vividfox9 said:This is nonsense. That’s exactly what we’re debating here...
Why on earth should they have that right?

Because they have the right. The historical context is pretty damn obvious.

vividraven26 said:Wait, where on earth are you getting that from? Seriously? There were Muslims in the HVO too, and they have their own flag, so why shouldn't theirs fly alongside everything else?

Maybe a Frenchman was involved too, so what now? Are we supposed to start flying the French flag next?

vividfox9 said:Not really. It’s just local permits. But you have to remember... California was first joined to America back in 1943.
The JBT forced out over 150,000 Italians. So... yeah, the historical context makes sense.

Oh, so if it’s just a local municipal permit, suddenly everything is fine, right? Please. This is the flag of the American people in Canada, the very same people who were ethnically cleansed by those other two groups—the ones without whom everything south of San Diego probably would've fallen anyway. So... you get the historical context, don't you?

lonebadger6 said:That’s actually a great way to frame what the whole point really is...

No, having the flag of the Italian minority flying in California isn't "North America," nor is it anything out of the ordinary. It’s the same for any Mexican or Canadian minority flag, or even an American minority flag anywhere else in the world where they have the right to fly it.

The real "North America" move would be seeing a flag from some other country hanging up in America...

It's completely the opposite of what you think...

Why does everyone else get a say, but here in America, we don't?

When you see a minority flag from some other country hanging in the US? That’s just classic "North America" behavior.

Total opposite.

Why do people keep using that term "Balkania"? Is it suddenly "Balkania" just because we have a folklore festival where folks travel from California all the way to a place like the Midwest, waving their local state flags? I mean, since we’re all Americans anyway, why bother stressing the local differences?

Bradley Sanders4 said:I guess you’d think it would be totally normal if they were flying the flag of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia at the right department over in Mexico, wouldn't you?☕

Can you please explain how you’re correlating HRHB and RSK? Honestly, it’s not even just about what you wrote being embarrassing—it’s actually pathetic.

Nathan Moore6 said:Look, I happen to know what our official flag actually looks like, and since we aren't living in Canada anymore, I'm quite certain that particular flag doesn't belong flying in front of our Department of Defense building, so if you guys are really that attached to it, feel free to pack your bags and move down to California where you can stare at it every single day for all I care. 😒

What part don't you get? So, HVO members are actually getting pensions from the US Federal Government? You've got to be kidding me. Seriously?So, basically, they have every right to fly the flag of the American people in Canada right in front of the Department of Defense. Why wouldn't they?

Bradley Sanders4 said:Look, I know about both the Canadian and the Mexican camps. If Bramertz actually said that, then the guy is an absolute idiot.

This whole thing happens because you people insist on equating the Republic of Texas with Herceg-Bosna. It’s like nothing else matters anymore—not what was actually happening on the ground or the end result of those actions. Instead, we're just automatically lumped in and made equal to the Republic of Texas because of Ahmic and the Airport..

It’s not "ours," it’s mine. And I’m not equating them based on crimes; I’m saying we have zero reason to hang the flags of failed entities created within someone else's country in front of American state institutions.

Just follow the discussion; that's what we're talking about here.

That's the flag of the American people in Canada. The territory didn't collapse; it was just integrated into the existing borders.

Megan Hernandez2 said:So let's get this straight—are you saying RS equals HB to you?

It gets even worse. For her, HRHB = RSK.

Morgan Cook10 said:The headline itself is insulting and just shows the author hasn't even bothered to learn basic terminology. There should be some respect for the symbols of the American people in Canada... instead of this blatant, primitive hatred.

Second off, right from the first post, the author tries to compare Herzeg-Canada to some kind of terrorist entity, which is also pretty offensive.

And third, you can see the author's animosity toward Americans in Canada right out of the gate, simply because of where they're from—that definitely falls under hate speech.

In short... I don't really get why this thread hasn't been locked ages ago. I thought we had moved past this kind of stuff back in America.

Because the mod thinks HRHB = RSK.

vividfox9 said:Fair enough.
Let it stay right where it belongs... in a neighboring country.

That’s just the flag of the American people from Canada. They have every right to fly it here in the US, just like any other flag.

That's the flag of the American people in Canada. What this guy is doing is just a pathetic attempt at trolling, not to mention the US Federal Government's shameful response.

William Bennett53 said:rustywalker42, I’m not even going to touch the whole debate over strictness versus those useless penalties. It’s a waste of breath. When you actually look at individual calls, almost every single time it boils down to something petty rather than any real principle or high-minded reasoning. But since you said you wanted to take this conversation a step further, I’ll weigh in on some of the other points being made.

Look, that’s not what I’m trying to do here—I’ve already said that a few times now. This whole thread is just about figuring out why the message count and user activity on this subforum are absolutely tanking. Why is everyone disappearing?

Look, I actually agree—bundling everything into these massive, monster threads just dilutes the conversation. It’s impossible to follow. If you aren't glued to the screen 24/7, how are you supposed to catch something interesting that happened five or ten pages ago? The alternative? Smaller, focused threads centered on specific events rather than just dissecting people. For instance, when Milijan Vaso Brkic, sitting right there as the number two guy in the nation's biggest ruling party, sends out two high-profile intellectuals and professionals... if they don't feel safe enough to show up here, they should just go live somewhere else. That deserves its own dedicated thread. It would help the regulars and the lurkers alike—and let's be real, way more people read this Forum than actually post on it. Not to mention making things easier to Google. But here’s the catch: that approach would require way stricter moderation than what we have now. A thread like that would spiral by page two. It wouldn't stay on topic; it would turn into a deep dive into everyone's personal lives, digging up old scandals, accusing media outlets of bias, or dragging up who fought where in WWII—who was a hero and who was a collaborator. The mods would be working overtime deleting off-topic nonsense, threads would get locked constantly, and everyone would start screaming about censorship. Or, on the flip side, we'd end up with five or six identical threads about Vaso where nobody stays on track, and we lose all clarity anyway. What's the point?
Look, I’ll say it again: if we could actually reach some kind of consensus on this, I’d be all in. Wouldn't that be something?

I don't get it—what’s the actual issue here? This Forum has operated on this exact principle for years. At the end of the day, an American version of Godwin’s Law is inevitable; you can't run from it. Personally, I don't see the problem. Why on earth would anyone be expected to hover over the Forum 24/7? A moderator steps in when they can and cleans up the thread. And honestly, one of the biggest headaches is locking threads. We should be avoiding that at all costs and only resorting to it as a last resort.

Is this actually a legal issue? I’m being serious here. Are you all just terrified of some potential lawsuits? (I haven't been keeping up with today's legal reality, anyway.) Is the fear that el Paso.net is going to get wiped out what's driving this? Is that why you think someone needs to be constantly "watching over" the topic?

I’m not going to get bogged down in the whole "carding" debate—whatever needs to be banned, just ban it. I’d much rather talk about this bit regarding off-topic posts. Honestly? I think it’s perfectly fine if the thread drifts off-topic a little—and I mean *little*—as long as the moderation is actually decent. If the mods know what they're doing, you can easily steer things back to the main gossip. Besides, a tiny bit of side-tracking might actually make the discussion better. Don't you think?

Look, what I’m trying to say is simple: you can call a politician a complete scumbag or tell them where to shove it, and that’s allowed. But try that same crap toward a regular user or one of our social groups? Not happening. And honestly, that’s how it should be. These people are public figures; their actions are out there for everyone to see, so why shouldn't we be able to get a little rough with our criticism? We could decide otherwise if we wanted—we could treat an insult toward Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, Frljic, Pusicka, or Glogosk as if it were a direct attack on me, you, lonebadger6, Blankica, or Gufi. But if we did that, we might as well just sanitize the entire Forum until it's completely sterile. You can't have it both ways. You can't allow us to tear into Frljic, pupovca, or Pusicka while protecting Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, Reiner, or Glogosk from the same treatment. It's common sense. Even kids get that, so I shouldn't have to spell it out. The users here? They're our peers. They're fellow debaters, not public figures, so they don't deserve that same level of scrutiny. That's why we protect them. As for the social groups, we protect those too. Insulting a group is just plain wrong. Groups aren't monoliths. Even if someone knows a dozen examples that seem to back up a stereotype, we aren't going to let them post that stereotype as a free pass to insult the whole group. Period.

Look, I don't think this part was ever actually up for debate. At least, not in my book. 🤷

Is this way of looking at things actually tearing the membership apart? Or is the decline in discussion and the shrinking crowd caused by something else entirely? Maybe it’s Facebook, or just an aging generation of users while the younger ones couldn't care less. Is it because there are too many online platforms now? Or maybe people are just sick of the endless, mindless debates about fascists and partisans? Could it be the easy access to porn and other ways to get a quick thrill? Or is it just the frustrating, broken servers and the total lack of technical updates on why Tapatalk still doesn't work? I have no clue. I'll leave those deep thoughts to the admins and the owner.

Sure, there are metrics for everything—this included. It’s obvious to me that for various political reasons, the owner of this Forum isn't going to drop the actual numbers, but I’m betting they’re pretty pathetic, especially regarding the Politics sub-forum. And please, spare me the insinuations about the moderators. I haven't been posting much over there lately, so honestly, even if I wanted to call them out, I couldn't. I don't even know what's actually happening.

I know what I see. And what I see is exactly what I laid out in my first post. That’s the whole damn problem.

Personally, I can't stand how this Forum just turns into nothing but endless bickering between extremists and stupid technical glitches. Maybe you find something else interesting, or maybe someone else does, but for me? It's just noise. 🤷

My bad on the typos—typing through a cracked screen here...

Maybe we should just start strictly sanctioning people who drag up old history out of context? Just ban it. Seriously.

What exactly is holding me back? I literally wrote it in my first post—I just don't know what there is to say. Every time I open this Forum, I'm stuck. What am I even supposed to write? Not even worth my time..

Look, just try it—or at least think about it. If you guys are admins, supermods, or mods, why not just kill those massive, brain-dead threads once and for all? Honestly? I think half our problems right here stem from those bloated topics alone.

@Gray, I’m calling you out, along with the rest of the mod team, to step up and deal with this.

The issue is real—I'm clearly not the only one seeing it.

Can you please weigh in on my post?

ZorroD made an interesting point, and honestly, we’ve all touched on this one way or another.

The issue is that massive, overblown topics get blown out of proportion until everything becomes a blurry mess. It's impossible to follow, and frankly, it's just a playground for trolls.

I’ve called for us to ditch this whole concept several times on this forum, but apparently, nobody cares.

Let me give you my take. I’ve been on this forum for nearly ten years, and I’d bet 80% of my posts are in the politics as such subforum. As for the political scene section? I can barely count on one hand how many times I've even clicked on it, though I probably left a few posts there too (likely just moved over from somewhere else).

Look, I'm being dead serious here: for months now, I’ve come to the politics subforum and—I don't know—just have nothing to say. It’s not because there isn't news happening in the country (or in politics), it's because the politics subforum has basically dwindled down to, like, seven or eight stagnant threads. The first page is full of topics older than a month, which, in my ten years here, has never happened before.

I'm asking because I genuinely don't know—and I'm not even trying to pick a fight with the mods here, just expressing my own confusion—is it even worth opening threads about current events like ZorroD suggested? Or not?

Or can I, only to have my posts drowned out by those massive, troll-baiting mega-threads?

Let's actually talk about this. Wouldn't we all prefer if the politics subforum went back to its former glory?

William Bennett53 said:Just one thing—maybe a minor detail, but not insignificant: comparing the page count from the Paris massacre to what happened yesterday doesn't prove the forum is changing over the years. The Paris massacre was just a little while ago, and nothing about this forum has changed since then. Sure, except for this constant headache with the server or Tapatalk, but we all know how much of a mess that is, and it’s frustrating for everyone.

You aren't reading me carefully enough:

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=57768225&postcount=9

Everything is clear to me. Social media is taking its toll (God, I'll never understand how anyone can argue on social media; there's probably no stupider way to have a discussion than through comments on socials, sites, or blogs—it's awful), but this decline happened so suddenly. I wouldn't say anything if it had been dragging on for years, but it feels like everything shifted in less than a year.

I wish someone could prove me wrong with actual statistics. In my free estimation, the forum is currently in decline, and lately, it’s been bouncing between stagnation and dropping off.

Emily Myers32 said:The reason for the difference in page counts between Paris and Brussels is actually pretty trivial: Brussels happened in the middle of the day. Everyone's at work, or wherever. Paris was in the evening. Everyone is home, watching the live coverage on TV or streaming, and spamming posts as they go (I know I'm exactly like 😬).
If anyone wants to check the difference within just the first few hours of both threads, they'll see. Everything after that follows the usual pace, I'd say.

Yeah, I agree regarding Paris, but I also think many would agree with me that the most active times on the forum are the morning hours until noon and the evening hours from 8 PM to midnight.

Which means, based on what I wrote above, Brussels should have been incredibly busy.

Just to be clear, I picked this thread by chance, but it works perfectly as a comparison.

Again—I don't remember ever seeing threads on the Politics board older than a month on the front page. That never happened. There are literally only 7 or 8 topics people write about, and even those 7 or 8 can go 24 hours without a single message.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the first one happy to be proven wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that this is a downward trend. It seems to have happened overnight, and I have no idea why.

That’s exactly why I asked about the moderation side of things. I figured maybe threads were being wiped or merged into bigger ones—but from what I can tell, that isn't happening. Still doesn't explain why activity on these 7 or 8 specific topics is basically dead.

William Bennett, seriously, does anyone actually know what's going on with this forum? Does anyone here even know Anderlon personally? I can't even remember who's in his circle anymore. Is it Nica? Can anyone give me a straight answer on what's actually happening?

Emily Myers32 said:Look, the reality is that forums (every single one out there) are fighting against a million other platforms and social networks. Most of them are just more convenient and direct. Period.
Plus, look at the demographics. That generation that used to tear these places apart is now busy working or dealing with kids and endless responsibilities at home, so they aren't hanging out on forums much anymore. On the flip side, the younger crowd is way more likely to spam those other platforms and apps because... well, that's just how they operate.

The world changes, 🤷

lonebadger6 said:It’s a bit of everything. The server definitely, since this is a mess... plus more activity in the political scene... and the fact that fewer new (younger) users are joining because they find other stuff more appealing, like Paul said... and so on.

And honestly, some of the differences aren't even as huge as they seem at first glance. A 42-25 split in Paris-Brussels is a gap, sure, but it's not that massive when you factor in things like us shutting down Brussels overnight because some extreme conspiracy theories started blowing up around midnight—we had to prevent total chaos and a sea of spam posts. Then there's the fact that for the average person (not an expert, just your typical guy), news from Paris like a mass casualty at a rock concert or an attempted attack at a stadium where the national team plays is "more attractive" to the masses scrolling through airports or the subway.

I get it. Social media is taking its toll (God, I’ll never understand how anyone can actually have a debate on social media; there is no stupider way to discuss anything than through comments on social feeds, pages, or blogs—it's awful), but this decline felt sudden. I wouldn't say it's been happening for years; it feels like everything just fell off a cliff in the last year or so.

Does anyone have the traffic stats? I can't shake the feeling that the graph shows one sharp, sudden drop at a specific moment, and I have no idea why.

lonebadger6, I don't want this to turn into a debate about moderation, but please stop locking threads overnight. I know cleaning up is part of the job, but when everything is already going to hell, don't make it harder.

And I don't think your point about locking threads holds water, because Paris was also cleared of a ton of messages, yet it still hit a much higher page count during that same window.

I know you might not know, but my question to everyone else is—why does it take so long to fix Tapatalk? Why have certain features been broken for over a month? Why does the forum keep crashing?

I realize we're dealing with a monstrously huge database, but I don't get why these issues can't be fixed. Is it the forum script? If it's not stable, then upgrade to a newer version; this one is over five years old anyway.

William Bennett53 said:If this is meant to be just another endless general thread about how the Politics section is moderated, let’s just shut it down right now. We aren't doing that. Those kinds of threads? Not happening.
Let's say the agenda isn't what we think it is. What if we just let things play out for a bit, while keeping that first sentence in mind?

Look, this isn't some conspiracy theory or an attack on the mods. It’s a legitimate question. I only brought up the moderation thing to see if that might be one of the underlying issues here.

northernsailor8 brought up the server. Anyone actually got the traffic stats?

Look, I'm being serious here. If I actually wanted to start some drama about the moderation team, I would’ve just made a thread for it—even if people wanted to trash me for it.

Is it just me, or is the Politics subforum running at maybe 40% of what it used to be?

I’m seeing barely any active threads. Take this one about the terrorist attack—only 25 pages after 16 hours. Compare that to the thread about the Paris attack, which hit 42 pages in the exact same timeframe.

Even on the first page of the general Politics section, there are threads sitting there for a month with zero replies. That used to be unheard of.

So, here’s my question: is the moderation being extra aggressive lately, nuking every new topic before it can even get started? Or is the user base actually shrinking?

Am I the only one noticing this?🤷

Can I get an answer here?

Standard forum etiquette is pretty simple: when a topic actually matters, you pull it out into its own thread instead of just burying it in some massive general discussion. That's how it works.

Who thought this was a good idea?

Why on earth would you dump 40 PAGES of a trending news story—something that’s been all over CNN and every major outlet—into a massive, generic 120-PAGE thread about police conduct over on the Law subforum?

Seriously, what's the goal here? Why do we have this stupid habit of stuffing everything into these monstrously huge threads where nobody can actually find anything anymore?

Can someone please explain the logic?

Sam Watson said:I follow this site occasionally, and honestly, it feels like this crew is making waves on a global scale. Like, their lead guy, Sven Mikulec, is constantly landing interviews with absolute icons—he just did one with Friedkin that caused quite a stir. Even the heavy-hitting international outlets picked up his interview he wrote for C&B. What’s the general consensus on Fak?

Anyone actually know this group? They all seem so young.

I used to follow the big US film sites pretty closely, and I always felt like FAK stood out as the gold standard.

And wouldn't you know it, looks like Sven is one of our own forum regulars too. 🙂

rustywalker42 said:Anyone seen this yet? I can't find a thread anywhere. Just watched it tonight, so I'll drop a quick review later.

Maybe I should've just written the review for myself. Good call on that one. 😁

Amanda Robinson4 said:This just hit our local theaters this month.

So, basically: Gaspar Noé doing his usual provocative thing with a story about empty lives: Love (2015)

Honestly? It wasn't great for me. Though, it definitely left an impression... Regardless of how much you could debate the length of certain scenes or the way they use hardcore pornography—you know, those unsimulated sex scenes without any censorship at all.

Maybe it just drags on too long? To me, some scenes feel totally random or just stay on screen way longer than they should. It’s not like watching Steve McQueen, Jim Jarmusch, or Lars von Trier where there's always something happening with the actors... instead, it's just these empty shots where nothing concrete actually occurs—you just don't feel any life in them.

And what can you even say about the acting? It feels like a lack of experience from the cast (do they even want to be there?) which makes it so hard for them to convey real emotion... and that's a huge missing piece if you want the movie to feel complete. Plus, the dialogue is just unconvincing, built on these super basic, cliché patterns.

That said, the concept is pretty interesting! You've got this non-linear plot jumping around through flashbacks, mostly moving from the end toward the beginning... plus the visuals are cool and the camera work adds a lot to that dark, depressing atmosphere.

You can also kind of read the director's own personal story through the characters... maybe he's the main guy or it's a story about his parents—who knows? To sum it up: I missed the emotion and the sentimentality from the characters. Because of all that heavy sexual exposure, the movie ends up showing nothing else but an empty story about empty lives...

Same here. Honestly, the nudity didn't even bother me. It never felt like gratuitous porn just for the sake of being explicit. It actually served a purpose.

Maybe it drags on too long. Honestly? Some scenes feel totally pointless or just stretch out way past their welcome. It’s not like watching Steve McQueen, Jim Jarmusch, or Lars von Trier where there's actually something happening with the actors. Instead, you just get these empty shots where nothing concrete is going on. You don't even feel any sense of life in them. Why bother?

Not me. I mean, I actually dig that whole audiovisual experience vibe—where the frame doesn't even need a specific plot point happening to be good.

What are we even supposed to do about this amateur acting? Do these people actually want to act? It’s impossible to feel any real emotion from them, and that lack of soul makes the whole movie fall flat. Not to mention the dialogue—just a bunch of unconvincing, cliché-ridden lines that anyone could have written. Total waste of time.

Honestly? I feel the exact opposite. I actually loved how everyone handled it.

The concept is what actually makes this movie worth watching. It uses this non-linear structure—lots of jumping around through flashbacks or just working backward from the end to the beginning. Throw in those visuals and all that camera work, and you’ve got a perfect recipe for a dark, depressing atmosphere. Makes you wonder if they did it just to mess with us?

I'm with them on this one. Every single word.

Bottom line? I’m missing any shred of actual emotion or sentimentality from these characters. There's just too much sex and not enough substance. It ends up being nothing more than a hollow story about hollow lives. What's the point?

Interesting take. I’d have to rewatch it since I didn't write my review right after seeing it, BUT empty stories and empty lives—that's exactly how most people live. That's the real world we're surrounded by.

Angela Davis4 said:I honestly found myself completely unmoved by this film. In my opinion, it’s easily his weakest work to date. The characters felt tedious and draining, making their entire narrative arc feel just as uninspired and dull. On top of that, even from a technical standpoint, the 3D execution was quite poorly handled.

I'd put it in the same tier as his other films, but what specifically do you mean about the technical side being bad?

Ethan Palmer61 said:Is it tough? Like, seriously intense? Well, it’s Gaspar Noé, so you already know it’s going to be a total trip. 😁

To me, it’s heavy, painful, typical Gaspar Noé. But hey, that’s just me. I think most people won't "get" it on first watch. It's one of those movies where you need time to let it sink in. A friend of mine watched it at the same time I did; he wasn't feeling it at first either, but he grew to like it once he actually sat with it and thought about it.

A lot of people will probably reject it—consciously or not—because of the pornography aspect, maybe even rejecting him as a director because of it. Personally, I didn't view the film through that lens, which I think might be the sticking point for most people.

Susan Price30 said:I’m sorry, but that part in bold is honestly a bit ridiculous; it's highly unlikely to be true. 😁

If you were writing this on a political blog under your actual name—or just posting generally on a blog or Facebook—your work would fall under the federal copyright law. But when it comes to anonymous posting on a forum? Well, that's a completely different story.

Once you hit "post" and it goes live on the forum, it effectively stops being yours. At that point, claiming or even maintaining any sort of copyright becomes a real uphill battle.

On the other hand, anything written on a blog or Facebook would constitute a new original work, even if someone occasionally incorporates snippets of others' copyrighted material like images or text. There is quite a bit of misunderstanding regarding this issue within the blogging community, mostly because bloggers and Facebook users haven't actually read the copyright law.

Regarding posts from various locations on the forum—the community will likely react preemptively if anything gets posted. Is there anything more exhausting than a flood of endless messages?So, essentially, if an aggrieved party wants to sue a poster, they can, provided that Forum.hr complies—but only upon receiving a valid court order or a police warrant. At that point, the site is obligated to hand over the data necessary to identify the author. That’s pretty much the extent of it. It's where your rights begin and end.

By the way, that last part follows the forum rules.

Especially when there are dishonest intentions to eliminate either the topic or the author from the forum.

Oh really? How can you claim that? Every single time you write one of those "farewell letters" on KZB, you cite the exact same excuses—things like being persecuted by moderators, censorship, or being silenced. But you’ve been around since 2002. Doesn't that suggest the reality isn't actually what you're claiming it is? 😉

That's just not true. Everyone knows who's behind a pseudonym, and it's easy enough to prove it if you have to. So, everything you just said? Doesn't hold water.

Hey, mods, supermods, admins... anyone there?

Can I actually get a response on this thread?

Since the mod is ghosting me, I’m taking this to the main board.

Alright, back to the immigration debate again.

So, here's the deal: user wizard of Oz gets banned from the forum—not counting his previous strikes, just pointing out he got flagged on this specific thread—yet unknown, who's been trolling the whole thing, keeps posting without a hitch. I reported him for THREE separate posts that were nothing but pure trolling (they all got deleted, so who knows if he even got a warning).

Oh, and get this: unknown actually called another user an idiot. As far as I know, that's a blatant violation of the rules, but since that post was scrubbed too, I can't tell if he caught a 45-minute timeout or what.

Don't bother asking me for links. Every single one of unknown's posts—including the ones I reported and the one where he called someone an idiot—has been wiped clean.

Can I get an explanation from the higher-ups?

And don't even get me started on how some threads are years old, filled with info that isn't just outdated—it’s ancient history—yet new replies keep piling on top.

Cramming everything into one massive thread is counterproductive, nonsensical, and honestly, just repulsive for anyone actually using this forum. But hey, it’s clearly just easier for the mods. It's pure laziness, and it completely trashes the site's organization.

It’s a mindless practice. I haven't seen anything like it on any major US forum I've ever joined.

Sam Alvarez4 said:Same here.

"Do you support Russian interference in Syria"

That word "interference" sticks in my craw every single time I open this thread.

I mentioned it once before and got slapped with two warnings. Fair enough, I guess—I was being rude and condescending about it.

But now I'm asking politely: can we just get rid of the word "interference"?
(Especially since the guy running this forum is famous for doubling up on threads and tripling the polls.)

It’s annoying.
It’s irritating.
It’s an eyesore.

P.S. I have nothing against the younger generation of neighbors, but if something is an eyesore, it's an eyesore.

Honestly, it bugs me too. I've thought about asking the mods to clean this up properly a few times already. 🙂