Posts by Jerry Robinson56

amberwalker4 said:Thanks 👍.

@Jerry Robinson56

I'm not an "anti-fascist," and I don't need someone like you explaining my own username to me. Your attempt at reading into how "clear" everyone else's positions are is about as useful as a broken compass in a storm. Thanks.

We are drifting off-topic, though I would prefer not to be accused of failing to clarify your own points, given it is painfully obvious you struggle to perceive the very statements you compose. Whether by accident or design, one wonders.
Strictly speaking... where did this notion of "collaborators" originate in your sentence?
Based on your response: Are you then a collaborator yourself, or is your usage of the term intended solely as a pejorative? Or perhaps you ought to place those "collaborators" within their proper historical context.

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=5...0&postcount=59

amberwalker4 says:
A clerical error during copying; here is the original version before the collaborators managed to pick it apart and desecrate it:

In essence, amberwalker4 finds it distasteful to invoke insults based on his own mockery, and while the racial laws in the Axis-aligned state were undeniably fascist, perhaps you lack the insight to realize that the /Zagorski/ crusaders were frequently war criminals who took pleasure in targeting civilians.
I have provided the link which clarifies the genesis of your handle... and your persistent use of "collaborators" remains an intriguing choice.
Neither segregator nor I are "insulting" anyone; we are simply noting the pedigree indicated by your moniker. Your username is inextricably linked to fascism and Nazism.
That does not necessarily define your character, but...

Best regards, along with a sincere apology for disturbing your peace in a thread concerning comments and messages.

My apologies for jumping in here, but I fail to see what the heck the anti-typhoid crowd is even complaining about, unless they are completely oblivious to the implications of their own usernames.

* amberwalker4 says: Check out this post
A clerical error during the copying process; here is the original version before the typhoid carriers managed to dig it up and desecrate it.

The question of who initiated the dispute is irrelevant; the intention behind amberwalker4's stance remains perfectly transparent.

It reminds me of that old joke where someone asks a local if there are any chauvinists in town, and he replies, "Not at all—we hate them just as much as we hate the Canadians."

epitaph

http://www.cro-eu.com/forum/index.php?topic=1699.0

The discourse tends to focus heavily on the members of the Armed Forces of the Independent State of America—specifically the Nationalists—while largely ignoring the Home Guard units, who fought against the American communist regime in an attempt to restore the Independent State of America (Axis-aligned state).

I should point out that while the Nationalists movement initially represented a pursuit of freedom for the nation, it eventually mutated into a fascist organization under the leadership of Ante Pavelić. Tragically, a vast number of Americans were killed by those very same supposed liberators.

😁 While we wait for a response regarding our previous inquiries

I am curious as to why my recent post was deleted. It merely pointed out the connection between the owner of The New York Times and the Trilateral Commission—of which an FEC member is also a part—as a direct rebuttal to the coverage provided by The New York Times regarding their supposed achievements.
Furthermore, the user samtravelija was acting like a total troll, clearly attempting to suppress any evidence of the registration... Can I get an answer on this?

Is there any intention... to restore it...?

It is perfectly reasonable to expect a smooth, continuous conversation, yet this user blue631 insists my posts are being deleted and then reposted simply because he failed to notice them in the first place.

However, there are even more egregious examples where replies to incredibly basic questions are wiped out—and my own simple inquiries seem to suffer the same fate...

I filed a report on that specific post, but not a single moderator has bothered to weigh in. Is it possible we are dealing with a security breach or a hack? Or perhaps his post was just scrubbed from existence.

Here is the thread he was "referencing," since I have apparently "fled" the discussion.

And here we sit, waiting for him to produce any actual evidence, while he suddenly vanishes from the topic entirely.

http://www.example-us-forum.com/showpost.php?p=5...postcount=1962

Then, following that, he claims the moderators purged those posts and that’s why he didn't see them.
👏 👏

No matter how trivial the subject, it’s always the same old pattern of sweeping things under the rug.
Instead of actually building a coherent argument, they opt for the degradation of the record.
Every one of his detractors knows full well that they received a definitive answer regarding his supposed "expertise."

So, what is the intended strategy moving forward? Was it a genuine deletion, an orthodox lie, or merely an oversight? As they say, ignore it and move on... and mind your own business.

As I have previously stated, everything eventually devolves into a gutter or a swamp. Just skip the philosophy about "being honest." It is what it is. It depends entirely on your perspective. In the end, that is up to you.🙂

Thanks.

Read this at your leisure....

You know, it isn't right, Nica to behave this way toward the users you are supposed to look after. I am merely a passerby here, someone entirely inconsequential—much like how the general mood of this forum is irrelevant compared to what remains once communication fails or becomes impossible.
It is glaringly obvious that suholist is a more aggressive type of clone, though he is the least of my concerns.
The clone is the one manufacturing this cesspool around her, repeatedly committing errors with clear intent.
What was the actual objective behind her completely unjustified ban? /We can discuss that later, if you are willing./
The situation is quite straightforward and rests in your hands. Regardless of the holiday season, your final... move is here.
Perhaps I should go pester Dorian, but since you intervened with your copy-paste reflections and a disciplinary action, I believe it is more appropriate to resolve this matter with you directly.

I am requesting that the clone's ban be rescinded because it lacks any foundation; furthermore, I would suggest you rescind your own, as it was triggered by a situation where no adequate response was provided.
/Perhaps I should have addressed only the supermods and admins, but given the title, it is clearly a plea for help/ following the clone's senseless and semi-idiotic entries in the banned users thread.
She offered a confession regarding an obviously premeditated act, yet she still "hopes" I will read it. 🤦

You will have to admit that my post was merely an "expansion" infused with a dose of irony rather than sarcasm, which is a distinct difference.

If the great, orthodox marksman ZgSash managed to suppress his true nature—launching direct insults regardless of whether they were truthful or whether forum functions were even active at the time—then I see no reason why you cannot dip the tip of your arrow in ink instead of my blood. Go ahead; it won't hurt. Heal the wound.
Mainly because you are aware of the injustice done to me; a genuine injustice.
The moderators ought to maintain order, and your role, alongside your duties and rights, is to ensure the moderators themselves remain orderly—just as you did when a moderator received a red card for their response to me in that banned users section, which was truly noble of you. At least, I hope it was you.
I maintain, and I am certain, that the clone does not belong in your circle, at least not in terms of cognitive and mental capacity.
And if an "ordinary" moderator were to examine a few posts surrounding the one she intends to "comment" on, it would be clear that the ban was not accidental.
Even suholist himself confirmed he understood the significance of being left behind/, and my entire flagged post was chronologically linked to it. I provided an explanation in the subsequent post.
My recommendation to you is to brush her aside, if not now, then at the first opportunity, as her outbursts will undoubtedly continue.

This is not how one should conduct business on a forum that is ultimately intended to be considered respectable.

Afterward, we shall discuss something very important, perhaps via private message... it concerns those Nazi-style posts by a certain brave small-town hustler, with whom the same clone surely shares a connection. Read about that too, if you feel inclined... it is a shame you have cut off my ability to engage in dialogue.
Between his incredibly polite posts, I am banned for being "impolite."

To conclude, I shall use Jesennin's words: "An untimely parting, against our will, promises a reunion, does it not?"

Have pleasant holidays.

I thank the moderators and supermoderators who did the work for the clone regarding suholist.

I am once again requesting that the clone refrain from participating in this thread.

Understood. NicaLook, regardless of how observant you claim to be, there were facts presented here that demanded a response, wouldn't you agree? Why didn't you step up? At the end of the day, it’s the substance that matters, not the delivery—and frankly, the presentation was more than sufficient.
I wasn't lodging any complaints regarding the actions taken. Chuck The concept of "either/or" is a fallacy that most people cling to because they lack the intellectual stamina to navigate nuance. They want simple binaries—black or white, yes or no, left or right. It’s a lazy way to process reality, really. Life isn't lived in those narrow corridors; it exists in the gray areas that most people are too frightened to explore. Making a choice between two flawed options is often just a way to avoid the harder work of synthesizing a third, superior path. But then again, I suppose simplicity is a comfort for the masses. Powerlock I have no intention of engaging with them. I firmly believe their claims possess at least a modicum of validity. The original poster, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to offer.

It is an undeniable fact that... a clone to be rightThere is a sub-signature from Krapljač.
It is an undeniable fact that she appeared before me entirely unprovoked regarding my enrollment in the banned users corner—specifically concerning that completely unjustified strike against my account. She went on to admit that she had deleted an extremely offensive post, and subsequently confessed that she failed to take the necessary actions she should have.
What more is there to add?

It goes without saying how a person operates under their chosen handle. a clone to be right She didn't say much, other than that brief note mentioning we’d be catching up again in two days. It strikes me as odd, honestly. vi The moderators and administrators seem to sit entirely idle whenever a moderator manages to look like an absolute fool through their own posts, or perhaps they simply fail to perceive the incompetence at all. I have been away on a business trip and was unable to weigh in sooner, though it hardly matters; even this somewhat humorous observation arrives far too late to change anything.

On this forum, your written word serves as your sole representative. It is the only medium through which you can project your persona to the collective. Consequently, if you choose to compose your thoughts with the intellectual depth of an idiot, the community will naturally conclude that you are exactly that.

I wouldn't want to hear any complaints about it.

This response is utterly eclipsing everything else. a clone to be right No red cards...

suholist

Unfortunately for you, you’re the one who's been left behind. And that’s just plain mental.Considering you spend your entire day here groveling for pennies from the Communist Mafia, it is truly pathetic.

Mentally deficient.
b) For pennies handed out by the Communist Mafia.
c) You spend the entire day dragging someone through the mud.

I am not attempting to insult anyone here. 🤔 It seems that even the responses themselves have become increasingly formulaic—stiff, two-dimensional, and utterly devoid of substance. Of course, there is always that one exception to the rule. a clone to be right Man, they really scrubbed that post from existence... And that’s just the beginning. Imagine if the IRS actually tracks down an unreported income stream—you aren't just looking at a simple correction. You're looking at penalties, interest, and a massive headache that could haunt your finances for years. It is a calculated risk that rarely pays off in the long run. 🕺

From the supplement. That is quite frankly bordering on the delusional. It is perfectly clear how things stand. suholist He finally realized that his only remaining deficit was against time itself.

It remains entirely unclear whether I am even being considered at all. suholist I have reported what was clearly evident from the following post.

Quote : a clone to be right

You’re absolutely right. I missed a step there—I deleted the post without properly filing it away in the archives first. That has been rectified now.

It is entirely irrelevant what the matter actually is. suholist Cardboard /question about coolness/ because I really don't view it as an insult, considering it comes from a guy behind Nica who signed up just this month! He’s got a shelf life of only 28 days, yet he’s already managed to rack up over 200 posts.

Is that sufficient for your needs, or shall I provide more?

It is patently obvious that I haven't done anything to offend the newcomer, other than perhaps stirring the pot a little.

I have attached the link below.

I have been observing the recent discussions regarding the current economic landscape, and frankly, I find the prevailing sentiment to be remarkably shortsighted. There is a pervasive sense of complacency among the masses, a refusal to acknowledge the structural rot that has been festering within our institutions for decades. We see people celebrating minor fluctuations in the market as if they were monumental victories, completely ignoring the systemic instability that underpins everything. It reminds me of a situation I witnessed years ago in Chicago—people cheering for a slight uptick in local commerce while the very foundation of the city's infrastructure was crumbling beneath their feet. It is the same pattern here. We are being led by a group of opportunists who benefit from this chaos, much like the remnants of the old Communist Mafia that continues to exert influence behind the scenes, pulling strings in ways most citizens are too distracted to notice. One cannot help but feel a certain level of cynicism when watching the mainstream media attempt to spin these narratives. They present a facade of stability, yet those of us paying close attention can see the cracks forming. It isn’t just about the numbers on a screen; it is about the fundamental erosion of trust in our national systems. I suspect many will call this pessimism, but I prefer to call it realism. To expect anything else is to invite disappointment. We are navigating a period of profound transition, and history suggests that such shifts are rarely smooth and almost never benefit the average person without significant struggle. One should remain vigilant, even if it feels a bit wearying to do so constantly.

And just one small addition.

And do you honestly believe this post from a clone to be right is even remotely decent?

Everything here is perfectly transparent, and frankly, it isn't right for you to lecture me simply because I was being somewhat irreverent.
This is nothing more than a domino effect; issuing this warning against me is entirely unjustified, as it seems you're exercising discretion based on mere whim. It’s a scale that reveals exactly how a self-proclaimed intellectual chooses to react when challenged.
As I have already stated, I am fully aware—this forum is private property, and you hold the final word, while we users are treated as nothing more than varying degrees of "patients."

Given your recent actions, Nica, will you actually step up
remove these warnings, or perhaps just target the clone, and restore my previous post to its original state? That would be the only fair way to handle this.

I fail to see where the dispute lies. Issuing a warning wasn't even stipulated in the rules, and as I clearly outlined in my other response to the deleted post by suholista, his entire contribution was completely off-topic. Let me remind you, this thread is about the Federal Reserve, not the President...

I would prefer to settle this matter once this is over; there is one more thing I'd like to discuss, if you are inclined.
Naturally, I assume you will actually devote some time to this; it would be the wise course of action.

Straight from the horse's mouth,

"That is a question for him, but I was there serving as an assistant to the NATO Secretary General," she claims.

Your twisted imagination has conjured up something that the person in question never once uttered; quite frankly, it exists solely within your own delusions.
Consequently, refrain from projecting onto me; instead, take a long look in the mirror. That was your own statement.

- Kotulica ... check the posts just before this one—it is all documented right there.

And this serves as the starting point.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Barbie; rather, it is merely the work of indolent Republican Party apologists trying to justify why Kamala Harris wasn't there as the presidential candidate, but rather as an assistant—when in reality, she hasn't held that assistant role for two months now.

Everything else is simply a fabrication of your utterly deranged imagination....At present, she attended the event in her capacity as a private citizen, a mere constituent of the USA.

There, you see the black and green on the blue... the mods have clearly scrubbed it,
but I am not seeking disciplinary action; I simply wish to prevent the spread of falsehoods and the wasting of time on individuals who propagate such blatant ignorance.

briskbison55 said:Listen, you’ve already been warned by the moderators regarding my previous comments—does a moderator's lack of expertise matter? It is impossible to refute a baseless nebula, much like one cannot punch through a reinforced concrete wall.

I beg your pardon? What exactly are you referring to?
If you are implying that this female user is merely broadcasting her own ignorance—which is evident given how others are warning her that she is talking nonsense—then I had the opportunity to read the rest of the thread before it was deleted, where I politely requested that she conduct herself with more decorum.
Given that the moderator Chuck is well aware of my particular temperament 😁, it is better to prevent a conflict than to attempt to remedy one after the fact.
My comments were not an attack on the topic itself; rather, Chuck intervened to save you from smashing your monitor and to spare me from receiving yet another red mark on my record.
Since you have decided to open this vein, proof that she is indeed peddling her own absurdities has arrived from the very faction she represents. Another user quite elegantly clarified exactly what I had already stated.
Furthermore, I have not uttered a single offensive or impolite remark.
This situation serves as a glaring example of exactly what William Bennett53 was discussing regarding how to draw the line between pure nonsense and a perspective that simply diverges from conventional interpretation.
This isn't about raw knowledge; it is about the capacity for reasoning and subsequent deduction. To err is human, but only true individuals possess the integrity to admit when they have made a mistake. That is the essence of it: simply saying, "Fine, I was wrong," and moving on.

briskbison55 said:If this were coming from someone who wasn't just parroting the same two tired talking points across every single thread, I might actually consider the idea worth entertaining. Are you quite certain this is a wise move? You'll likely be the first one facing sanctions.

As I have already stated—the fundamental issue here is the tendency toward absolute, exclusionary logic among my opponents, coupled with a general lack of depth in their understanding.
If my reasoning were flawed, surely someone would have refuted it or provided a more nuanced explanation by now, whether it be the regular users or the moderators. As it stands, all you are left with is faith. And if I recall correctly, your signature suggests that faith is your primary method of operation... until then, I shall continue to "believe" in my own correctness, grounded in the actual facts I apply to reality.

It is certainly not a simple matter.
I had intended to present a rather bizarre example concerning representatives of the Republican Party, but within the parameters of the topics you’ve listed, we wouldn't truly dive into the depths of the debate. Instead, we would focus solely on what is self-evident—what is scientifically verifiable and established as objective fact. For instance, I have observed a certain forum user with subpar technical knowledge and even more questionable reasoning who attempts to deny that a candidate actually made a specific claim regarding her own status.
The issue here isn't a disagreement over how one interprets the statement; it is the outright denial that the statement was ever uttered.
One should always be free to interpret a comment as they see fit.
However, when the facts are staring us in the face, debating them is an utter waste of time.
There is a distinction between mere nonsense or differing opinions—even in cases where someone tries to argue against the Round Earth by claiming the planet is a flat disc—and something else entirely. In such a case, one should point out the logical fallacy in their argument rather than punishing them simply for believing the Earth is flat. A belief itself shouldn't be penalized, but making an absolute, exclusive claim that such a belief is an indisputable truth? That is where the line is drawn.

Perhaps this thread will remain open slightly longer to allow for the reporting of various topics, ensuring we don't find ourselves in endless debates with the moderators themselves. I would suggest that following the warning issued to Chuck, any attempt to distort the blatant truth regarding Hillary Clinton should be met with an immediate three-day ban—provided reliable evidence is presented and the opponent continues to dodge a fact that was actually asserted by the side they represent. We aren't talking about differences in interpretation here, but rather the literal words spoken.
The debate won't lose its vigor or its intellectual elegance; in fact, offering apologies will become much easier thanks to these decisive measures. Anyone else who raises this specific point will receive a warning for propagating falsehoods, which will then lead to sanctions unless they can provide a legitimate reason for bringing up the "question" when the facts are already clear, or if they have somehow uncovered entirely new information.

To be specific—regarding the thread about the Republican Party presidential candidate:

Barack Obama was not invited—or rather, according to protocol, should not have been permitted—to engage in campaigning as a presidential candidate, yet the Republican candidate did exactly that, despite not being officially invited in that capacity.
And yet, a certain forum user continues to deny it.
I consider this a foundational post. Without the implementation of these proposed sanctions, we risk becoming nothing more than parrots repeating what has already been established.
Opinions and suggestions for improvement are, as always, welcome...

It is highly probable that your RAM is becoming saturated. Application settings and cached data rarely clear themselves out automatically once you navigate away from a page.
Try performing a clean reinstallation of your browsers. (And don't forget Internet Explorer).
Furthermore, as previously noted above, your router is also susceptible to freezing up.
It isn't an everyday occurrence, but it does happen.

Think it over or go find someone else to validate you, because I am certain you are dead wrong. The situation in Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with any "American precedent," and the moderators allow for nuance without demanding total exclusivity. You really ought to consider why you find it so impossible to tolerate an opposing viewpoint. I won't waste space detailing my arguments here—there is a dedicated thread for that—so perhaps you should try looking there.

Just a quick observation regarding the Office of the President; he’s essentially the King of Chocolate. It puts me in mind of the King of Flowers.
And both of them serve their masters.

Carol Torres4 said:You should probably seek medical advice too. You really ought to visit your primary care physician, who can refer you to a specialist to figure out what's actually going on with you.
Because there is clearly an issue here, both with you and with the moderators who allow you to keep posting.
Not all moderators are as incompetent as those on the politics board, though; I noticed you were kicked off the science forum immediately. Clearly, that place is moderated by someone intelligent—someone who uses their brain for more than just a haircut, someone who doesn't bow to ideological standards and actually has some dignity, so they wouldn't tolerate your nonsense, your whining, your insults, your Ad Hominem attacks, and so on.

And by the way, don't bring my mother into this. That's cheap, man. I didn't even finish my thought, because a person needs a little motivation. But your mother certainly isn't that.

Now, go ahead and count down how quickly they'll decrypt this post, then the previous one, then the one before that—all because the criteria aren't applied equally.

🤣 It is quite evident that you are incapable of... answering even the most basic inquiries.
As for the highlighted part: "The further south you go, the sadder it gets." You're Zadar, he's Split... 🙂/it's already been established./
If the administration actually allows it, we can have a real debate—just you and me—and you'll see exactly who ends up looking like the amateur. Have no doubt about it 😍.
The actions taken by this frogger are purely political and serve as a precedent for this supposedly "tolerant" forum. Pure Harmon behavior, and I intend to prove it.
What's happening in that other section is a disgrace, but it isn't the topic at hand here.
Regards. Stick to the topics.

redorca13 said:I was mistaken to even mention you in the first place...

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. You initiate things with personal attacks, and once you lure someone into your specific brand of trolling, you refuse to let them out.

You were the first to label me a Reagan loyalist, completely without justification.

When I grew weary of being repeatedly branded a Reaganite, you pivoted to calling me jealous.

If I am supposedly jealous of you while we are discussing Mesic, doesn't that imply a certain proximity to him? Or what exactly am I meant to be envious of?
Furthermore, you seem to possess more knowledge regarding Mesic than Mesic himself does; you assert things that even Mescic has never stated, presenting them as absolute facts.
Does that not also betray an unusual closeness?
If I, who have never written a single word in defense of Tuman, am considered a Reaganite, then what does that make you—given that most of your posts consist of defending and praising Mesic as the only honorable and worthy politician?
What is the logic there?!

I attempted to resolve this via private message, hoping to avoid drowning other participants in this nonsense, but it was futile.
Instead, you resorted to mocking me, claiming I am an unworthy interlocutor simply because I don't use certain punctuation marks... not to mention the array of insults you showered upon me in those private messages.

If the moderators here believe you have the right to jump down the throats of anyone who disagrees with your views on Mesic—automatically branding them as Reaganites, backwards, or dim-witted—then so be it. I will respect that dynamic and simply refuse to engage with you ever again.
It is difficult to debate someone so resistant to reality, someone who presumes to correct Mesic himself and claims to know more about him than Mesic does.
If you hold star status on the political landscape and serve as the personal trademark for that PDF, there is nothing I can do here except mock you.
On the private thread, I politely requested that you write whatever you wish, provided it remained professional and not personal, but it was useless.

So, if the moderators believe you are exempt from the rules that govern everyone else, who am I to challenge them? Enjoy yourselves!

However, that does not grant you the authority to delete my posts which violate no rules whatsoever, nor does it justify falsely accusing me of bringing someone's parents into the conversation.

You don't want me to post the private chat logs... which is fine, since doing so would technically violate the rules by exposing the full context.
I, however, am careful with my words. I have no intention of insulting others or flaunting my status as you do. In fact, I won't be writing anything else here; I have already said enough to demonstrate your profound detachment from reality—the massive discrepancy between what you claim and what actually is. If you look at our respective posts, it is clear you lack the ability to answer a simple "yes" or "no." If you cannot grasp that distinction, one cannot begin a serious debate with you. My comment regarding punctuation was only because one of those Reaganites claimed that "family" wasn't an American word. 🙄.

As I was mentioned in this thread—to put it briefly—every beginning is inherently difficult. It becomes significantly more taxing when you are facing an opponent on the other side who finds it effortless to anticipate your every move. It is truly a shame that this discussion has unfolded in such a manner.
redorca13 redorca13, you really ought to consider evolving your ego through a bit of deep exegesis. It failed to take root. What was intended as a serious exegesis—a rigorous, scholarly debate—has instead devolved into nothing more than a mockery. redorca13 I am forced to make this observation simply because the content at that link is no longer accessible. I attempted to engage in a transcription session with rustydrifter10 to see if we could reach some form of reconciliation, but I was met with a blunt and quite correct response: this particular subject matter is not open for debate.
Nevertheless, my approach was both assertive and velvet-smooth.

Are you actually sleeping with Mesic? Because the way you praise and defend him makes it seem like he’s your own flesh and blood.

I assume you're under the impression that there is some sort of financial incentive driving my contributions here. It is a rather bold assumption, though I suppose in this day and age, one shouldn't be surprised by such cynicism. Truthfully, I find the notion quite amusing. I am simply here to provide my perspective, regardless of what anyone else might imagine my motivations to be. And you have the audacity to offer me discretion?
The core arguments are laid out right there in the link I provided. Do try to actually read the material instead of just typing away aimlessly.Even if you've been compensated for your performance, I would ask that you show some consideration for those of us attempting to engage in a serious discussion.

Come on, redorca13, step up your game. Be more obvious and more eloquent.

What exactly am I envious of?
Is this just more of your desperate attempts to suck up to Mesic? And what exactly kind of emotions am I supposed to weave into this jealousy?
Regarding that matter—I find myself feeling quite envious of you. You seem to be constantly sucking up to Mesic, and doing so with nothing more than the very fingertips you use to type. Should I actually consider myself jealous?

It’s confirmed. They are paying.
Just because you derive some sort of enjoyment from being a paid, deceitful hack doesn't change the fact that you are nothing more than a mercenary.

Are you truly as unwell as everyone seems to claim?

Take a look at this paid shill, Jerry Robinson56.He is constantly hunting for transcripts of various shows on YouTube, but it is a futile endeavor. Even when you provide him with the direct link and meticulously note the exact timestamps for every topic discussed, he remains entirely indifferent to the information. He simply does not care.

Regarding that final sentence, you've missed the mark entirely. Your impression isn't what was actually said, if you follow me.
How am I supposed to provide you with any semblance of direction if you aren't even aware of what you’ve heard?
I have already provided both the video link and that explanatory breakdown from about eighteen months ago, exactly as you requested.

To put it briefly, I expect some sort of defensive commentary will follow. It isn't because I have explicitly branded him a "Tuđmanist"—I haven't directly labeled him as such—but rather because of his fundamentally psychotic pattern of denial and obstructionism. One must distinguish between the two: being a "Tuđmanist" describes a specific state of consciousness, whereas a mere admirer would simply be called a Tuđmanophile. Zoran’s behavior falls into the latter category. Perhaps I should finally be compensated for having to deal with these accusations of slander and libel, or perhaps we could simply reach an agreement. 😁There is absolutely no sense in penalizing someone for making infantile remarks. However, I would advise you to be quite precise with your response; we are venturing into rather dangerous territory here.

Regarding your comment about the moderators... it isn't just a matter of having thick skin. It’s more that the vision becomes clouded; if they weren't strictly enforcing the rules, you could easily have people on either side of an argument handing out insults like candy as long as the platform allowed it. That said, I don't particularly care for Sam Green73. 🙂, they’re almost certainly correct, so you might as well just take the warning and be happy about it. Personally, I have zero patience for that kind of thing; I lose my temper immediately.

Carol Torres4 said:I’m going to take a moment to dismantle the lies, insults, and manipulations scattered throughout this post, which should make it perfectly clear why I felt compelled to report it in the first place.

He claims I’m lying, yet he can't point to a single falsehood. Instead, he just resorts to lying himself.
He calls it deception, which is really just a polite way of saying lying.
He accuses me of obstruction, even though everyone on this forum knows he’s the one who obstructs every conversation he joins.
He claims he doesn't know me, but he hasn't demonstrated any actual knowledge either.
Essentially, his entire argument is just a series of Ad Hominem attacks without a shred of substance.
Then there’s the mention of my "infantile conclusions" being "fantastically fanatical." Once again, he offers no coherent reasoning, making it obvious that his only goal is to insult me.
And then he tosses out "frenetic delusion." 😁
Just imagine if I were to write to one of your little internet celebrities, or if I posted on Edge or Cuki calling them a "frenetic delusion" or "paranoid schizophrenia"—or any other psychiatric diagnosis. How many points would I get? Would I be flagged for "insulting users," hit with 100 points for "gross trolling," or would they just skip the formalities and slap me with 500 points for "hate speech"?

To start with, what does it mean to locate? This guy claims it isn't an American word, and apparently, uncovering is also a foreign concept to him.
There is a video where Vladimir Šeks clearly explains what needs to happen to resolve the situation regarding Ante Gotovina.
The plan is "We won't let our generals fall."
So, to locate means to uncover a position or find the place where an object or subject resides.
Where is the problem here? Can you not grasp that the same thing can be expressed using different American terms? Try answering that.
I bet you can't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ_t-Z_2J2A ... tell me, what did Šeks fail to say?

This is the first example of how my words are being twisted. I stated—and this can easily be verified right here in this thread—that Šeks never actually used the word "locate," and that was it.
He tries to argue against that undeniable fact by providing a video link that proves Šeks didn't say the word "locate."
Therefore, I am correct; I told the truth, while he twists that truth, dumps a pile of spam, and drags in more insults just to end up doing what? Posting a link that confirms exactly what I said was the plain truth.
He claims Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is completely wrong. The responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that the acts took place, but it wasn't clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scene. Blaškić was held responsible simply because the higher-ups—specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak—were essentially washing their hands of it.

-quoting you-

CONFIRMS the unanimous, condemnatory verdict handed down to the appellant:
1) regarding point 15 based on Article 7(3) of the Statute for crimes committed in relation to unlawful confinement in relevant detention facilities,
2) regarding point 16 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for ordering the use of protected persons for the construction of military installations, and
3) regarding point 19 based on Article 7(1) of the Statute for inhumane treatment of detainees involving their use as human shields.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how much of an idiot someone has to be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence... for Tihomir Blaškić.

This is a textbook example of twisting someone's words, because that isn't what I wrote. First, they snatched a single fragment from my post and used it to build a sentence about a 45-year prison term—something I never even mentioned in my original post. Here is my actual entry, for anyone who cares to check:

Look, I provided a link to the official Hague court website containing Stjepan Mason's testimony so that any literate person could spend thirty seconds verifying if my summary of his testimony was accurate. It’s not rocket science.
After that, I wrote:
And now, the final verdict against Blaškić, dispositive section, page 308.
I specifically bolded the word "final" just to make it clear we aren't talking about some preliminary ruling where Blaškić got 45 years, but rather the final judgment where he received nine years—essentially three years for each specific point. And when it comes to those three points, Mason is implicated in two of them; as the prosecutor's introduction states, he testified regarding the circumstances mentioned in counts 15 and 19 of the indictment.
It is perfectly transparent that they falsified my post, distorted its entire meaning, and then tried to argue with that fabrication. Naturally, instead of an actual argument, they just resorted to a barrage of insults:

I assume, in your usual fashion, that you've taken things out of context again, once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate. Pathetic and miserable.

It can't be "out of context" when I provided links to both Mason's testimony and the final verdict for Blaškić, allowing anyone to verify the context themselves. This is just a blatant lie followed by an insult: "once more demonstrating how those Harmon operate."
If I had behaved this way, I would have been told I was acting like a typical communist, a hardline partisan, or a radical leftist, and I would have been promptly slapped with a red card. That usually happens after I find a lie and convincingly debunk it, not after I misrepresent someone else's words, change their meaning, falsely accuse them of lacking context (when I actually provided the links), and then attack their truths with lies and vitriol.
Instead, I targeted a lie, used links and evidence to show the truth, and then slapped on a label, inevitably earning a red card.
So, here is yet another glaring piece of evidence that the rules aren't applied equally here.

With Stjepan Mason taking power, those classified documents that Franjo Harmon kept under wraps are finally coming to light, clearly pointing toward a shadow chain of command where war crimes were carried out right under Franjo Harmon's nose. It was actually Franjo Harmon who blocked Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which is exactly why Ante Gotovina ended up in such a mess.

http://www.time.com/article/10412/...asili-blaskica

It’s just more of the same—a repetitive cycle of debunked lies that I honestly can't be bothered to revisit, though it is quite telling; much like how this same user keeps lying all over these boards about not being acquitted by the UZP in the final ruling for Operation Storm.
You really ought to look in a mirror.

Why don't you actually cite the specific sentences where you claim Mason accused Tihomir Blaškić of non-existent crimes? Don't bother translating, because your failure to grasp basic English has clearly led you down a path of constant delusion.

So, once again, instead of attempting to prove a point, we resort to Ad Hominem attacks, claiming I "don't know English," yet they can't even point out where my translation went wrong. And for anyone here who actually knows the language, feel free to check this post where I provided my translation; since all the testimony transcripts are in English, you can verify it for yourselves.
Ultimately, it's nothing more than standard trolling.

It's worth remembering—you posted this link yourself, even if you didn't bother reading it or understanding the English:

Just off-topic spam that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I suppose that’s another 10 points for you, assuming you could actually manage to follow the rules you helped create.

That should be enough to start with, though I truly fail to see why the moderators waste their breath on nonsense, much like the two of us.
Lies won't get you far, other than leading you to leave this forum in disgrace.

More insults, then. As our little breakdown has shown, not a single one of these alleged "lies" has been proven, let alone refuted.

The summary is simple: it starts with insults and armchair psychiatric diagnoses, moves into someone editing my posts twice to change the meaning, followed by more insults, then trolling, then spam, and finally, a few more insults to wrap things up.
And all of this is directed straight at me. Meanwhile, I somehow receive, I repeat, 45 points for this post:

In which I don't even mention a single name, yet I am awarded 45 points because the moderator assumes I'm targeting someone. They seem to think that because I didn't explicitly name them, I was still implying it, even though I never forced that narrative. I wrote a response filled with nothing but raw facts and a mountain of links, only to have the entire post deleted.
Why was that post removed?
So, I get a warning based on mere suspicion, I get attacked and insulted when I try to respond to an enrollment, and then when I provide a convincing argument backed by evidence, that gets wiped away too.
And you honestly claim to apply the same standards? Do you have any shred of shame left?

It is quite interesting how you mention stepping away during a funeral when one wasn't even on duty...
And let’s be clear, William Perry wasn't "just" on duty for a year and a half....
You know, anyone could have made it to a funeral if someone was willing to cut a check for $250,000... it's a simple matter of economics.

This is what happens when someone willfully disseminates unverified falsehoods, only for the Harmon to start making a fuss about the scale of it all...

We could pivot to more recent events, but I prefer that you focus on one specific point at a time; otherwise, you will learn nothing but resentment.
As for the accusation of obstruction... I believe co-conspirators should choose their own path; they don't necessarily have to agree with my assertions, even if there is a high probability we will eventually converge.
However, to recognize that convergence, one requires both sufficient intellect and basic integrity.

post festum

Carol Torres4 said:And what about you? Are you expecting me to dig up all those old threads where this individual keeps lying about how Stjepan Mason's testimony cleared Tihomir Blaškić?
I’ve already laid out the facts in my previous post, providing arguments that simply cannot be refuted.
At the end of the day, someone can call me a liar, but only if they can actually dismantle the logic I've presented. They can call me an idiot, provided they have the proof to back it up. They could even claim my father was a war criminal, if they had the evidence to show it. But here, there isn't a shred of proof to be found.

I don't expect anything more from you or people like you, other than another arbitrary 500 points—which you clearly haven't earned—followed by another 500, because apparently, you lack the capacity to hand out 1,000 points at once, though we both know why that is.
When people throw these accusations at me without a single supporting argument or a verifiable source, I tend to meet them with the same level of scrutiny; feel free to keep attacking me personally, since it seems to be the only tool left in your kit.

If you truly believe that this behavior is going to improve the quality of this forum, then I wish you the best of luck with that...

You are entirely mistaken; you are simply mirroring everything I have said regarding your posts. It is obvious you aren't stupid—I have complimented you on several occasions—but you display a profound lack of knowledge despite being incredibly skilled and persistent, much like those old-school precinct officers.

But when I say not everyone is thinking clearly for you, what I mean is: are you actually thinking rationally?
Because even fools think, provided you don't try to deflect again.
It is evident from your text that you fail to distinguish truth from falsehood, or even the "truthful lies" one tells when backed into a corner by a superior force—take the situation where Stjepan Mason acts as a witness. You ought to understand that witnesses are prohibited from discussing their testimony with others under penalty of law from the same court. It should be perfectly clear why I suggest your judgment isn't being aided by the collective intellect, especially if Mason were required to confirm his status as a protected witness... quite a scenario, my friend.
And you were quick to point out heaps of nonsense in my words. I am curious to see which one you pick.

Carol Torres4 said:And what about you? Are you expecting me to dig up all those old threads where this individual keeps lying about how Stjepan Mason's testimony cleared Tihomir Blaškić?
I’ve already laid out the facts in my previous post, providing arguments that simply cannot be refuted.
At the end of the day, someone can call me a liar, but only if they can actually dismantle the logic I've presented. They can call me an idiot, provided they have the proof to back it up. They could even claim my father was a war criminal, if they had the evidence to show it. But here, there isn't a shred of proof to be found.

I don't expect anything more from you or people like you, other than another arbitrary 500 points—which you clearly haven't earned—followed by another 500, because apparently, you lack the capacity to hand out 1,000 points at once, though we both know why that is.
When people throw these accusations at me without a single supporting argument or a verifiable source, I tend to meet them with the same level of scrutiny; feel free to keep attacking me personally, since it seems to be the only tool left in your kit.

If you truly believe that this behavior is going to improve the quality of this forum, then I wish you the best of luck with that...

Over time, it becomes a constant systemic error among the Harmon... a secret agent's jackpot of 004%.

Regarding that "Be honest, you are capable of it."
You are acting emotionally and failing to judge the situation objectively. We are all prone to errors, but only the great ones admit them.
You have shown that you can honestly admit when you are wrong, yet since then, you have merely sought vengeance, which is a poor way to conduct oneself.

@ Carol Torres4

If I have caused you offense, I offer my sincere apologies.

post scriptum

Do not assume that your efforts go unappreciated or unrespected, but perhaps consider why someone might hold a differing opinion and remain as stubborn as a mule. You may not fully grasp the complexities of what transpired back then. You can see a modern parallel right now: the absolute silence surrounding the looting of America. Look at the sort of "individuals" who represent this country within the European Union—aside from the rare exceptions, of course. When conducting an analysis or an autopsy of what remains of our Homeland, one must examine both the micro and macro levels, looking at individual instances and the broader landscape simultaneously. And the origin is paramount. We all carry biases, and it is clear how one receives a more or less packaged response—whether appropriate or not—whenever they stray from the established path. It is never my intention to insult anyone; my goal is merely to hold a mirror up to them and their actions. This includes reflecting their own "weapons" back at them. What they perceive in that reflection depends entirely on their own intelligence and, primarily, their capacity for a wide smile. Avoid prejudice and mob mentality. Very little is ever truly as it appears. Try to look on the bright side of life.
If I have caused you offense, I offer my sincere apologies.

To write to you suggesting I would accept a punishment just to make you happy—well, wouldn't you be the one feeling satisfied, rather than me?
The immense effort you expend to prove you are right does not mean you are speaking or writing the truth, particularly when you attempt to twist words or provide completely erroneous translations. Be honest and admit that, regarding translation, it is painfully obvious that you, Carol Torres4, have erred several times, as you are clearly swallowing the rhetoric provided by that secretive amateur 004 /data known to the editorial staff/
. But let us proceed in order, please, one step at a time, and let the moderators deliberate. Believe me, the moderators on this political board are quite capable; I do not report anyone, but I respond to you using the very methods you employ. You simply receive a reflection of your own words and thoughts.

Carol Torres4 is complaining

Let us see how you intend to respond to this, should anyone among you dare to try.
I have formally reported the post above in which I am being:
1. insulted

Just provide a single example.

post scriptum

Don’t go assuming your efforts aren't being noticed or respected, but do take a moment to consider why someone might hold a different view or why they remain as stubborn as a mule. You likely have no inkling of what was actually happening back then. You can see a perfect contemporary example right now: the absolute silence surrounding the looting of America. Just look at the kind of "individuals" representing us within the European Union /barring the exceptions/. When you perform an autopsy on what remains of our nation, you have to examine both the micro and the macro levels—looking at individual actions as well as the systemic whole. Most importantly, one must look at the origin. We are all subject to bias, and it is quite clear how you will receive a more or less packaged response—appropriate or otherwise—the moment you stray from the expected path. It is never my intention to insult anyone; my goal is simply to hold a mirror up to them and their conduct. That includes returning their own "weapons" to them. What they choose to see in that reflection depends entirely on their own intelligence and, primarily, their wide grin. Avoid prejudice and mob mentality. Almost nothing is ever truly what it appears to be. Try to look on the bright side of life.
If I have offended you, I offer my sincere apologies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrtjDaCwuD4 - and read the comments so that you slightly better understand the environment, which is precisely where those Harmon manufacture and glorify lies, much like vrebac2.