Posts by rapidnomad512

It feels like every time we look for new blood to bolster a roster, the options just aren't there. The gap between what we actually need and what's available on the market seems to be widening every single season. Anyone else feeling like the scouting game has become a total nightmare?

http://findandmount.com/

I’ve used this hundreds of times. It usually does the trick, even for the messy stuff—there’s a full version floating around on torrent sites if you need more muscle. The real advantage here? It doesn't perform any permanent write operations on the drive. It just mounts the partitions so you can grab the data. That’s key. You don't want to trigger some permanent action with unknown consequences and turn a bad situation into a total disaster.
Just watch your step with the drives. Especially if you're dealing with a multi-drive setup like the one in that photo. One wrong click and you’ve made recovering data ten times harder. As long as they haven't been reformatted and you haven't overwritten them with new files, you can almost always pull everything off. But it’ll be a massive headache.

Look, if you’re using any tool that touches partitions—especially on a machine with multiple drives (like that setup in the screenshot)—double-check every single click. Triple-check it. Trust me, being careless can turn a simple fix into twenty hours of grueling data recovery work on a drive that wasn't even broken to begin with (specifically that "disk 0" in the image). 😁

Good luck. This tool should mount those partitions from the drive, letting you move the data elsewhere before you start messing around with the hardware itself.

darkowl72 said:There are a handful of data recovery outfits in New York City. Check their rates and find one that offers free diagnostics. Let them take a look at the drive to see what's actually broken, like this:

Good grief, do NOT send it to that shark over at Infolab. That guy sets his prices based on what kind of car you drive and what industry you work in. He once tried to charge a lawyer friend of mine $1,500 just to recover a deleted partition.

Those guys from Sweden have proven themselves to be a solid, honest company.

Honestly, paying a specialized recovery firm for this feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. You can handle this with Hiren's boot CD or some other software tool.

William Bennett53 said:Let’s settle this whole business regarding edits once and for all...
As a general rule, moderators don't edit posts. Especially here in Politics, where everyone knows that tampering with content can be an explosive move. We recently dealt with a situation where that line was crossed, and after being warned by my colleagues, myself, and the admin, it was made clear that such behavior is unacceptable. I believe we have moved past that. If you ever see someone’s post being edited again, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

That said, there are specific circumstances where moderators can—and indeed should—edit introductory posts. Here are the guidelines:

Adding a moderator warning to the first post (in this instance, the second post, as there was no room in the first) is a standard moderation intervention for an intro post. Furthermore, the owner of this site has emphasized multiple times that introductory posts must be cleaned up regarding grammar, must not contain problematic content, and should remain concise—serving primarily as a prompt for discussion. In short, moderators frequently adjust opening posts. This applies strictly to the introductory posts, but those are certainly subject to these rules.

Was some message bolded just for me?

This thread started a topic that has racked up 270,000 views. If you ask me, it was opened with damn high quality.

And sorry, the opening post was edited and fixed grammatically about a year and a half ago.
No further edits are needed. Grammatically, it's perfectly fine.

Michelle Evans said:Posts are edited according to standard moderator practices and common sense...

Can we please stop beating a dead horse and move on?

Install an extension to view edit history, then you can argue all you want. Until then, nobody touches my posts without me knowing. We’ve seen enough nonsense on the politics board—editing after deleting, all that garbage.

There is a ban on moderators editing posts, and I can dig up proof if necessary. Bottom line: editing posts is prohibited!

There is zero reason to alter someone's post without their consent. A post is a person's own work; adding or changing content is unacceptable, especially when there's a shady intent to wipe out a topic or push an author off the forum.

You’ll probably claim I’m lying, but those of us who have lived through this for years know exactly what the truth is.

So, leave my posts alone. Write your own thoughts and edit those instead.

Bradley White73 said:@Sam Green73, by claiming you love reading this topic so much, I guess you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole. You yesterday edited the opening post without the author's permission. This thread is a year and a half old now. Honestly, who knows what else is being deleted or will be wiped away in the coming days? And that alternative suggestion—allowing comments on the election but archiving the thread later—well, that feels like nothing more than a veiled threat to me. You don't really have any legitimacy here; you haven't built it through contributing, you've just lurked, reported, and deleted things whenever you felt the need to "protect" the thread from its own creators right before an election. To be honest, your moderator warning (and I mean this generally, regarding any imposed moderator figure) wouldn't mean a thing to me on the Visegrad Group thread. If I ever feel the need to go there and write something, I'll moderate myself and handle whatever consequences come my way.
@Ryan Vaughn7
That little provocation about forum.karamarko.republicanparty is honestly quite pathetic. I suspect you didn't even open the thread, to be fair. Just so you know, people put their hopes in the Democratic Party too, and they were tearing into the Republican Party like they were some German player. People were arguing, feathers were flying. The thread isn't ideologically biased (except maybe for Edward Ortiz77, who was the only one who never went after Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović 🙂 and turned out to be right!).
The Democratic Party lost, so they basically made their policy crystal clear (focusing on the Western North America rather than the Visegrad Group), so I suppose there isn't much left for us to discuss here. We knew this even before the migrant crisis and before these recent reports about the rejected invitation. I might suggest you actually open the thread and start reading. It seems to me that many of you here act as if you're coming from simpler times 🤣 where everything is just red or black. You might be surprised at how complex and nuanced political thought can actually be.

Edit:
William Bennett53, I'm only just getting to your post now, so please excuse me if I've responded to something you already addressed.

And just like that, the Republican Party’s golden boys—according to Ryan Vaughn7—me and slybison8 have officially pinned all our hopes on the Democratic Party. We’re the ones leading the charge against the welfare state within the GOP. In fact, I’ve personally penned more scathing critiques of the Republican Party on this issue than anyone else, alongside a handful of other right-leaning users like Winter Snake and others.
So, Ryan Vaughn7's thesis is completely off the mark—as if he thinks he’s stumbled onto some groundbreaking insight. Honestly, I was just waiting for someone else to point out how much he missed the point.

William Bennett53
Nobody’s going to turn this thread into some pre-election pep rally. We’ll keep observing the campaign exactly how we have been until now. Has this whole thing just devolved into a pre-election chat room during the presidential race?

I think these hunches are based entirely on a moderator’s gut feeling that something might happen. It doesn't mean it actually will.

We need to take a hard look at the blatant hostility coming from leftist parties toward the Visegrad Group. At the same time, we can't ignore the signals coming from the Republican Party—they're staying quiet for now, but they aren't exactly silent.
Splitting this off into its own separate thread just makes it harder for people who actually care—but aren't regulars here—to find any real election info. This topic has clearly outgrown the usual forum chatter; it matters to people outside this bubble who don't follow every little internal shuffle. Of course, they want to keep it contained within these walls to minimize its impact on the real world. That’s the real reason behind the push to break it up.

I’m asking again: why is it that whenever a topic about Zoran Milanović comes up, it gets lumped into one massive, bloated thread, yet this specific subject is being picked apart? Why aren't posts regarding Milanović's role in the election process moved to their own dedicated space instead of just cramming everything into one giant pile?

Why is there such an obsession with treating THIS specific topic differently?Why isn't this same principle applied to every single topic during an election cycle? Why don't we see duplicate threads for everything in the election pdf? Is there a dedicated thread for medical marijuana use, abortion, or gender issues?

William Bennett53: In the Czech Republic, the left is in power, just like in Poland. So, your claim that right-wingers are running the show across the Visegrad Group doesn't hold water. If anything, the left is currently dominating.

Sam Green73 said:What you're doing right there? That’s called projection.
It would honestly be such a life-changing lesson if we could all just grasp one simple thing: the mental image you have playing on loop in your head doesn't necessarily line up with reality. We’ve all been there—you build this entire scenario in your mind, convinced of how things look or how someone is acting, only to have the actual truth hit you like a ton of bricks later. It's wild how much our own perceptions can play tricks on us.

The thing about facts is that they aren't just opinions floating around in the air—they’re things you can actually pin down and document. It’s one thing to have a gut feeling or a heated argument, but it's a whole different ballgame when you can lay out the hard evidence right in front of you. Once you've got the proof, there's really no getting around it.
I honestly didn't even catch that invite. I must have completely missed it!

Take a closer look at that. Seriously, you really need to dig a little deeper into this one.
I usually drop moderator warnings right at the beginning of my intro message, but I decided to tuck this one into the second post instead. Honestly, I didn't want to mess with your original text—it was already massive, and the forum's character limit was giving me a hard time about how much I could squeeze into a single post!
I actually had to keep things super brief just to follow the instructions to read through message #2.
Look, just so we're all on the same page here—adding extra info to the opening post is just standard moderation around here. It’s nothing personal, just how we keep things running smoothly!

Honestly, props to them—they really went all out trying to hit that 10,000-character mark. I can’t say I’ve ever encountered an introduction quite like that before!

I’ve been following this thread for such a long time now—honestly, I find this whole discussion absolutely fascinating. I just can't seem to look away!
Lately, I’ve actually started hitting that report button a bit more often. Honestly, it’s just because things have been getting so cluttered lately—there’s just an overwhelming pile of off-topic posts popping up everywhere, and it was starting to get a little ridiculous!
Honestly, this whole debate is starting to wear me out. It’s getting pretty exhausting, though I have to admit—even if it is becoming a bit much—the topic itself is actually really fascinating.

If a political party ever actually decided to step up... Explicitly. She brought up the Visegrad Group, and honestly, I think actually sitting down to write something about that mention would make a lot of sense.
Honestly, I feel like spinning yarns that have absolutely zero basis in reality is just counterproductive. It’s a total waste of everyone's energy, if you ask me.

From now on, you can either delete my posts or just leave them alone. Since there’s no edit history here, nobody can tell what’s been changed—that's the rule. Regarding my own posts, I want them to show only my edits, unless I explicitly give an admin permission to step in. This is especially true for any posts you might end up deleting. 😉

And frankly, I think editing or—if it's actually true—deleting posts that are over a year old is just wrong.

Sam Green73 said:What you're doing right there? That’s called projection.
It would honestly be such a life-changing lesson if we could all just grasp one simple thing: the mental image you have playing on loop in your head doesn't necessarily line up with reality. We’ve all been there—you build this entire scenario in your mind, convinced of how things look or how someone is acting, only to have the actual truth hit you like a ton of bricks later. It's wild how much our own perceptions can play tricks on us.

The thing about facts is that they aren't just opinions floating around in the air—they’re things you can actually pin down and document. It’s one thing to have a gut feeling or a heated argument, but it's a whole different ballgame when you can lay out the hard evidence right in front of you. Once you've got the proof, there's really no getting around it.
I honestly didn't even catch that invite. I must have completely missed it!

Take a closer look at that. Seriously, you really need to dig a little deeper into this one.
I usually drop moderator warnings right at the beginning of my intro message, but I decided to tuck this one into the second post instead. Honestly, I didn't want to mess with your original text—it was already massive, and the forum's character limit was giving me a hard time about how much I could squeeze into a single post!
I actually had to keep things super brief just to follow the instructions to read through message #2.
Look, just so we're all on the same page here—adding extra info to the opening post is just standard moderation around here. It’s nothing personal, just how we keep things running smoothly!

Honestly, props to them—they really went all out trying to hit that 10,000-character mark. I can’t say I’ve ever encountered an introduction quite like that before!

I’ve been following this thread for such a long time now—honestly, I find this whole discussion absolutely fascinating. I just can't seem to look away!
Lately, I’ve actually started hitting that report button a bit more often. Honestly, it’s just because things have been getting so cluttered lately—there’s just an overwhelming pile of off-topic posts popping up everywhere, and it was starting to get a little ridiculous!
Honestly, this whole debate is starting to wear me out. It’s getting pretty exhausting, though I have to admit—even if it is becoming a bit much—the topic itself is actually really fascinating.

If a political party ever actually decided to step up... Explicitly. She brought up the Visegrad Group, and honestly, I think actually sitting down to write something about that mention would make a lot of sense.
Honestly, I feel like spinning yarns that have absolutely zero basis in reality is just counterproductive. It’s a total waste of everyone's energy, if you ask me.

Explicit attacks on Visegrad Group countries:

Interior Secretary Ranko Ostojić stated on Thursday in Luxembourg that it is unacceptable for the United States to see Visegrad Group nations sending police officers to Schengen borders, as it would imply sending even more police and military forces alongside the wire between the US and Canada.

Speaking about the Visegrad Group meeting, Zoran Milanović said that while the President does what she believes is best for America, he doesn't understand those moves.

– Canada is a blind spot for Europe right now because of its Prime Minister, who was an active communist and then a liberal—who knows. Look, I stay the same whether I'm the President or not, and now she’s claiming the system has collapsed—the American system is exemplary. That’s what all European leaders think and say. Everyone chooses their own circle. My circle includes Angela Merkel, Werner Faymann, and Miro Cerar, regardless of any friction between America and Canada, which belongs to her and Tomislav Karamarko's circle, I suppose. I am Zoran Milanović, not Khuen Hedervary – Milanović remarked.

And so on and so forth... I won't sit here and quote every single attack on individual countries, especially regarding Canada and the Czech Republic.

Essentially, parties bring up the Visegrad Group and some of them relentlessly attack Visegrad Group nations, using those attacks as pre-election weapons.

Maybe you don't want that to be obvious?

Similarly, analysts view the construction of walls and the deployment of police and military units from Visegrad Group countries as a pre-election tactic designed to aid the Republican Party.

We discussed these issues with three experts who systematically track the refugee crisis. They consistently point to a growing question: is one of Viktor Orbán's motives for closing the borders to benefit the Republican Party during the election campaign?

I'd like to remind those above me that almost every analyst so far regarding the Visegrad Group has pulled their data and written their analyses by partially copying posts from this very thread. In short, this Visegrad topic has several forum users who act as the primary source for analysts in America on this subject. Now, by trying to ban the analytical influence of this thread on the election process, they are actually trying to prevent exactly that—stopping forum analysts from remaining a source for everyone else.

The Visegrad Group IS a top-tier political issue following the border closures.deciding the elections in America.

You’re trying to choke off that influence at the root just to tip the scales of the electoral process. Look, the issue isn't the election officials; it's you. The media tracks the shifts in the political landscape so people can make sense of them—you're just trying to blindfold them.

Charles Fox10 said:Three strikes and this thread goes to administration.

Write it out in both words and numbers.

Edward Ortiz77 said:It took a full year and a half—on a thread moderated by slybison8, who commands genuine respect from both the users here and his fellow moderators—for you to swoop in and start "moderating." And how exactly are you doing that? By editing the original post eighteen months later just to claim: " Grammar fixes and layout adjustments without altering the content."

Let’s be clear:

1) Suddenly, this thread requires strict moderation and trimming, and conveniently, this happens right when Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović shows up at the Visegrad Group meeting.

2) You’re showing zero respect for the authority and experience of your colleague slybison8, essentially questioning his methods and his ability to moderate.

The conclusion is obvious: your decision to butcher this thread is purely ideological. In the process, you're undermining a professional colleague and casting doubt on his competence.

Here is the reality check you seem to be ignoring: this thread has never been an issue on this part of the forum, nor has it ever been treated as a "special case." You turned it into one through your own moderation. Are you actually trying to suggest that slybison8 was doing a poor job, necessitating your intervention after a year and a half?

If I recall correctly, our users have voted him as the best moderator multiple times. So, your decision to step in and "correct" his work is certainly... bold. 👍

To be clear, that reason for editing was written by slybison8 when he edited the post with my permission!

But this forum already looked into editing posts because of the habit of deleting posts and then editing them later just so they can be "justifiably deleted." It was determined that since you can't see the edit history, editing posts is strictly forbidden.

Charles Fox10 said:Less than I have.

What’s the total number of posts deleted by all moderators since October 8th?

Charles Fox10 said:Continuing my tally of deleted posts... over the last ten days or so, three more posts have been wiped from this thread. Some users haven't even managed to write a single original thought before jumping in to weigh in on the massacre.

How many has he scrubbed in total?
What’s the big issue with lucaton's deleted post where he cited the membership invitations that both Ivo Josipović and Vesna Pusić rejected?

Is this supposed to be a chat room?

Charles Fox10 said:Your own posts have been getting wiped—one specifically just in the last ten days—yet here you are, starting a thread with some sensationalist headline about a topic being slaughtered. 🤦

If I were being picky, there's plenty else I’d choose not to read.

Just one from me. But honestly, how many has Sam Green73 nuked in total since he started poking around this topic? And more importantly, how many people stayed silent just because they knew they'd be deleted anyway?

We’re seeing methods here that are completely unprecedented. First comes the censorship, then the bans, and finally, the self-censorship kicks in—until everyone just stops posting altogether. 😉

There he is, editing the original post.
I’m asking the admin to compare the opening post before and after the edit and restore it to its previous state immediately!

Last edited by Sam Green73: Yesterday at 8:51 PM. Reason: Proofreading and graphic formatting without changing content.

So, eighteen months after this thread was opened, you suddenly decide you're the moderator? By what authority? You aren't touching my posts unless I give you the green light—there's a rule against it. Don't you dare mess with my posts!

I’m calling on the rest of the users to check their own posts. Make sure everything is intact and in its original form, because it looks like a purge and a cleanup operation has officially begun.

Sam Green73 said:I was honestly convinced that I had already laid out a solid solution right here on this thread—suggesting we spin up a whole new discussion topic over on the elections subforum titled "The Visegrad Group in Party Programs and Activities."
I'll go ahead and drop the link right in my opening post!

I was just thinking—another way we could handle this would be to move the whole thread over to the 2015 election subforum. That way, once the election is finally wrapped up, we can just tuck it away in the archives and keep things organized. It seems like a much cleaner way to go about it!

I honestly don't think I'm going to let the chat run wild.

I honestly can't get enough of reading through this thread. I find myself coming back to it all the time!

I’m not buying it.
I’ve laid out my arguments, and your excuse about this being "just chat" doesn't hold water. Threads can drift, sure, but when a topic is this solid, users eventually police themselves after a few posts—I've seen it happen a dozen times already.

Let me be clear: there wasn't a single issue with this thread for a year and a half until you showed up! Now, suddenly, the whole thing is problematic. The idea that people just went crazy all at once and started chatting is total nonsense. It’s simply not true.

The topic is relevant, highly engaging for the election cycle, and politically significant. The only reason you're pushing this is ideological. We both know it, and pretending otherwise—claiming you enjoy reading it while simultaneously trying to dump it into the archives forever—is a joke. Save that sales pitch for someone else.

It’s also interesting how the logic works: if something doesn't suit your political agenda, like that specific thread on Ivo Josipović, you tolerate it being buried in some massive mega-thread where nobody can find the info. But now, with this collection of useful data, you want to split it up so no one accidentally stumbles upon the information, while your own opening post will likely be ignored by everyone.

And please, don't touch the opening post. I am not giving permission to edit it because I have no idea what you intend to change! Because if it’s true that things were being deleted from the start of this thread as the user above claims, then that's a serious problem. Don't tell me you're tampering with posts that are over a year old.

Another option would be moving the thread to the 2015 election subforum and archiving it once the elections are over.

So, what you're actually proposing is to kill this thread permanently. 🤣
Fantastic. 🙏

William Bennett53 said:Listen, folks, let’s not descend into nonsense right now.
The Visegrad Group isn't an election topic, and as for any pre-election debates—even those concerning the US and the Visegrad Group—please take them to the election sub-forum. It’s not as if there isn't enough room; you can post there as much as you like. Let's keep this specific thread for the usual daily political mudslinging and election season drama.
Secondly, and finally, what is with all this moving around? For heaven's sake, slybison8 is a respected veteran here and a long-time moderator of Politics; I don't recall anyone ever questioning his authority, at least not since my time as a supermod.

Picture this: a thread dedicated to "medical marijuana use." Now, imagine people debating it for eighteen months straight. They’re dissecting how different political parties handle it—because let's face it, those parties are the ones actually pulling the levers on legislation—and they're arguing about how to regulate sales through the legal system. Fast forward to election season, and suddenly the moderators drop a hammer. They pass a rule saying you can't talk about party platforms anymore because it's too "partisan," forcing everyone to stick strictly to scientific data or literary analysis. That’s pretty much exactly what your ban on the Visegrad thread feels like.

Look, Dorian, I’ve always respected you as an intelligent guy who isn't blinded by ideology—unlike some of our other colleagues here—even if we don't exactly see eye to eye. Just stop for a second and actually think about this ban they've slapped on you.

Of course you can't have a real debate here. From where your buddies are sitting, discussing party stances regarding the Visegrad Group is off-limits. Too many important eyes are watching this thread; if any party's position becomes "official" through these discussions, their ideological standing is toast. That’s why we don't talk about party lines. Instead, we talk about values—values that actually matter to the right-wing population. We're talking about sovereignty (something the V4 nations are demonstrating clearly right now), securing borders, and defending our own principles. These aren't some "universal European" values—because those don't exist—they are the core values held by individual sovereign nations.
When you strip everything else away, America's foreign policy can only head in three directions. First, there’s the dream of being a powerhouse—a fully sovereign, independent nation that doesn't play favorites or get tangled in excessive alliances. It’s the ultimate goal for any true nationalist, but let's be honest: it's an impossible mission. Second, we could just act as the little shuttle for the Western North America, serving as their primary gateway into the European Union. That’s the path favored by the American left and all the progressive factions. Then there’s the third option: becoming a core player in the Adriatic-Baltic axis—essentially joining the Visegrad Group. In this scenario, America would leverage its strategic position to drive massive projects. We’re talking about turning the U.S. into the premier logistics hub for energy and goods for all of Europe by utilizing the Krk-Gdansk pipeline and transforming the Port of Rijeka into the continent's main import terminal. Furthermore, by integrating into the Visegrad Group, our representatives in the European Parliament would hold veto power—since they command over 15% of the vote—granting America real teeth and significant influence within EU institutions.

Right now, the President of the United States is the only one pushing this vision. What’s really eating at the left is the realization that the Republican Party might actually start backing her. If that actually happens, the Republican Party is going to steamroll the elections.

Look, the whole Visegrad Group issue—especially with everything going down regarding migrants lately—is a massive, top-tier campaign issue here in America. It touches everything: how we handle migration, our entire foreign policy direction, and ultimately, the core values Americans want to live by. Of course, your colleagues hate it. The idea that a coherent right-wing movement could actually emerge—one that blends all the elements of the modern conservative movements across Europe—absolutely terrifies them. This topic isn't just a debate; it’s an existential threat to the entire leftist ideology in Europe. It threatens the multiculturalist agenda, the push for federalization within the European Union, and even the socio-economic models currently being tested across the Visegrad Group nations. Even the leftists within the Visegrad Group aren't pushing their old-school ideology anymore. Take Fico—he's a leftist, yet look at where he stands.

That’s exactly why they’re pushing to lock this thread down and put up guardrails. Look, folks, if right-wing ideas are such a threat, why are there fences and barbed wire on the borders of the Visegrad Group topic? Just let them through. Don't meet them with rubber bullets or water cannons; at least act like you value liberty. You claim to be progressive, you claim to be forward-thinking—I'm sure a little debate won't leave a scratch on you. 😉

And let’s wrap this up: hiding the fact that Vesna Pusić and Ivo Josipović were invited to join the Visegrad Group and turned it down, then scrubbing any posts that mention it, isn't about "moderation." It’s pure, brutal censorship. And let's stop kidding ourselves—if it weren't for a direct order, Sam Green73 wouldn't even be here. He was sent here with a mission: to police a specific point so that no one wanders into this discussion and drops five facts that could swing an entire election. We laid out a winning platform ages ago—five core projects that deliver everything: money, national clout, sovereignty, distance from the Western North America, a stronger stance for Americans in Canada, and integration into that Central European cultural sphere that tourists flock to see in our cities. Any party actually implementing this would sweep the competition.

That is the sole purpose behind trying to kill this thread. To prevent it from becoming a campaign issue.

I find the decision to ban discussion of this topic within daily political frameworks to be incredibly malicious, because it is a daily political issue. I find the decision to ban discussion of this topic regarding elections to be incredibly malicious, because it is a legitimate election issue. This ban needs to be lifted. It doesn't promote pluralism on a forum that clearly influences real-world spheres and actual politics; instead, it relies on brute force censorship to protect a losing ideological position held by the current moderator clique.

I'll say it again: do you want a forum that serves as an ideological echo chamber, or do you want a forum that acts as a genuine architect of public and political opinion in America? If you want a cave, stick with these crusty thugs. If you want to be creators, just read the Visegrad Group thread and act accordingly. The roadmap is right there; the choice is yours. It’s time for moderators who follow Central European cultural and value standards, because the ones we have now are like last year's snow—they'll melt away along with that dead Western North America project we buried in this thread. 👋

Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović’s vision and goal is the Vertical, Central Europe, and potentially the Visegrad Group. 😉

But you and I both know what's actually going on over there, don't we? We could sit here writing elegies or playing semantic games, but that won't put food on the table. 😉 It feels foolish to play nice and pretend we're talking about pears when we both know we're dealing with apples. Let's stick to the apples! Moving on.

This thread serves as a reminder to those higher up the food chain that they can judge your performance simply by comparing the topic before you to the mess left after you.

Before you stepped in, this topic was the official policy of the President of the United States; since then, it's been throttled down to one post a week, with 30 deleted comments and 5 users banned (give or take, but I'm not far off).
It's obvious the issue lies with the thread itself and the Republicans—end of story!

Why this kind of slaughtering of the topic? Is there an issue with her? She spent her entire tenure on this forum without a single hiccup, then she steps in to moderate and suddenly everyone’s got a problem. Does it bother you that she moved from the forum into the mainstream and became part of the President of the United States' administration? Any forum would be proud of that, yet here you are, tearing her down.
Just go ahead... show your true colors. But I haven't been writing for months for nothing: you can stomp on the flowers, but you won't stop the spring.

Look, this one little oasis—which had been shielded from the ideological wrecking crews of this forum until now—just showed you what could be achieved if you simply allowed some freedom. Either learn from this, or let the ideological destroyers trample the garden. Spring is coming regardless.

Thanks to everyone who followed along over there. As far as I'm concerned, there's no point in actively participating in a thread while waiting for someone to delete your posts.

Regards,

William Bennett53, I’m reaching out with a request. Could you take a look at what this guy said on the last page of this thread?

In my view, this kind of discourse has no place on this forum.

Sam Green73 said:Got someone specific in mind?

Of course I do. Just lift the ban on Marasovac.

William Bennett53, I’m stepping out of this debate. Let people look at the arguments and draw their own conclusions. But things shouldn't be happening behind closed doors.

You're trying, I'll give you that. But you aren't getting very far.

Regardless, you, me, and everyone else know that if what that right-wing forum user wrote had been posted by anyone else, he wouldn't be here. If a right-winger hadn't been slapped with a permanent double ban, he'd be racking up 500 points for that post. Right!? And they wouldn't even bother coming to you, because they feel like filing an appeal with the management at Kruger National Park.
So go ahead, keep trying. You'll know you've actually succeeded when the right-wingers start complaining to you. Until then, this whole thing remains just another repetitive pattern we've seen for years.

A debate just like this one a few years back regarding another forum member actually established the rule that approving comments about throwing people into pits counts as hate speech. It makes me sad because this exact situation has dragged us right back to where that debate started. Back then, it was a violation of trolling rules; now, it's treated as some sort of "nuanced step." A piece of trash is still trash, no matter what fancy name you call it. Hate speech is hate speech. If you want us—you and the others—to understand what you're peddling as "discussion context" or whatever other excuses you use, just throw in a mention of an uncle, a father, a brother, another nationality, Romani, Jews, homosexuals, or whatever else you like. Then explain the "context" to us.

That's all from me. You've allowed a precedent where hate speech can be wrapped up in "context" (especially from a repeat offender) and still pass. That's on your conscience. I'm left with a few red cards and the feeling that I tried to fix this. Everyone carries their own weight.

William Bennett53 said:The user behind that previous post hasn't been penalized for breaking site rules. If you check the complaint logs or the appeals against bans, you'll see him whining about his punishment. Go look for yourself.

First off. 😉
Then you corrected it.

But fine, the fact remains: three days later, he’s still posting just like I am, even after I called him trash to his face.

So, celebrating people being thrown into mass graves is treated the exact same way as calling someone trash. It's the same violation.

By the way, you slapped me with a ban for allegedly leaking private data. I actually started looking for his specific post where he did it by saying: "There were very few of them left at the old mill, mostly killed, too bad some escaped."

Now I’m bringing this issue into the light publicly. This isn't about doxxing anyone; it's about the fact that the user first tried to settle things through private messages with administration, and when that failed, he went public to see if other users could help track down a post that "mysteriously" vanished.

I know, I can't prove it because the post is gone. How convenient.

But the reality stays: someone wrote that people tossed into pits lived like animals and deserved to die that way. And the reality is he’s still posting three days later.

He was nearly hit with a permanent ban twice! Why? Why can't certain people get banned once, especially those who have contributed nothing but trouble to this site?

What’s the secret behind the protection this guy gets while constantly dancing on the edge of hate speech?

Look, I won't sit here and speculate that there's some political bias involved—just answer the question. Because if some right-wing piece of trash had written that regarding victims of extremists, how many points would they get? A 35, 45, or a 70-point ban within three days? Would there be a police report filed too?

Let's agree on one thing: celebrating the execution of people in mass graves is one of the most severe violations possible. Let's establish that as a universal standard and decide that such an offense should result in a one-strike rule on this forum. I don't care who says it.

This post should have earned at least 500 points for hate speech, if not an immediate permanent ban. That's my take, it's yours, and it's what everyone reading this knows. So why isn't that the case, and what kind of special treatment is this guy enjoying? You tell me.

Just to test the logic, I could swap in different groups into his sentences and then you tell me how many points those sentences carry. Why does one sentence mentioning a Jew or a Mexican trigger the heaviest penalties, while another saying wounded soldiers and medical staff are Americans is treated as a minor infraction?