Regrettably, this discussion will require me to address specific points piecemeal, as the level of falsehood, deception, obstructionism, and sheer ignorance displayed by Carol Torres4 increases with every single post. The infantile nature of his conclusions is nothing short of fanatically absurd. It is pure, frenetic delusion.
To begin, what does it mean to locate? What is a location? You have the audacity to claim that "locating" isn't an American word, and apparently, even uncovering is a foreign concept to you. There is a video where Vladimir Šeks explicitly states exactly what needs to happen to resolve the issue regarding Ante Gotovina. The plan was essentially: "We won't let our generals fall." Simply put, to locate means to identify the position or the site where an object or subject resides. Where is the difficulty for you there? Are you truly unable to grasp how the same thing can be expressed using American terminology? Do try to answer. I wager you won't be able to.
You suggest that Stjepan Mason is responsible for the verdict against Tihomir Blaškić. That is patently false. Responsibility lies with the crimes that were undeniably committed. Mason merely provided his testimony and confirmed that these acts occurred, but it was never clear who the culprits were because the perpetrators fled the scenes of the crimes. Blaškić held responsibility only because—and I'll say this plainly—those above him, specifically Franjo Harmon and Gojko Šušak, were washing their hands of the matter.
-your quote-
UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMS the condemning verdict delivered to the appellant: 1) regarding point 15 based on article 7(3) of the statute for criminal acts committed, 2) regarding point 16 based on article 7(1) of the statute concerning orders to utilize 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 through the use of human shields.
I honestly cannot fathom how much of an idiot one can be to think this warrants a 45-year sentence for Blaškić. I assume, as is your custom, that you have fragmented information taken out of context, once again demonstrating the typical operating procedure of a Harmon. It is pathetic and wretched.
Upon Stjepan Mason taking power, secret documents were uncovered that Franjo Harmon had kept hidden—documents that clearly indicate a parallel chain of command used to commit war crimes under the direct political umbrella of Franjo Harmon. Franjo Harmon prevented Ante Gotovina from testifying as a witness, which resulted in Ante Gotovina being singled out.
Go ahead and cite the specific sentences that lead you to conclude that Mason accused Blaškić of non-existent crimes. Please, refrain from translating, as you have already demonstrated a lack of elementary English proficiency, which leads you into frequent delusions. One should remember—you were the one who posted this link yourself, yet you clearly haven't read it (or perhaps your English will improve later):
That is all for now, though I see little point in the moderators wasting their time on such nonsense, just as "the two of us" are doing. Lies will not get you far; they will only result in you leaving this forum in disgrace.
P.S. Regarding the colored text, I always have the link ready at the moment of writing. If, by some chance, one is omitted, just ask, and it will be posted within moments—provided it hasn't vanished due to some higher power.
🙂 I have by no means insulted Soljačić; in fact, I have an entire collection of my previous posts ready to substantiate my claim. It seems my opponents simply lack the attention span required for careful reading. My only assertion was calling him a dilettante in the most literal, strictly academic sense of the word.
The definition implies that one may possess quite extensive knowledge or skill. As long as they aren't practicing professionally—that is, earning their primary livelihood from the craft—they are categorized as an amateur or a dilettante.
You could just as easily have labeled me a hack, given that my detractors have offered nothing but sheer incompetence in their rebuttals. It would be a regrettable waste to close this thread. We are merely dealing with people being true to their natures, and frankly, the threat of a permanent ban felt rather heavy-handed, wouldn't you agree? There is plenty of fodder here for those interested in debate, and for the sake of enlightenment, there remains a substantial volume of discourse to explore. thanks
Your assessment was far too vague. Did you even consider whether one of the solutions to this "complex" is actually viable? Furthermore, if other aspects have failed or fallen short, shouldn't we call things by their true names? One could easily encounter someone who feels slighted or insulted, making it quite obvious when comments are entirely irrelevant to the topic or lack any semblance of "expertise." As a moderator, you cannot possibly witness every dirty blow dealt; it isn't a failure on your part, it is simply the nature of the beast. I am presenting my arguments through subtle hints, attempting to nudge "the other side" toward actual reflection.
I am not implying 🙂... please, don't take this personally. You understand, of course. You do. Besides, politics moved into a long time ago. with a very transparent implication, starting from the notion that I am not stupid, just unhinged, and so on... Since I have no insight into your body of work, I simply allowed a newcomer's portfolio to provide an initial impression based on what was written. I took your draconian warning quite seriously, regardless of whether I possess the inclination to write, and I find it fundamentally unjust. The inquiry was specifically asking whether the condescension extended to Mr. Soljančić. Please refrain from applying such generalizations to everything.
shadoworca3 said:@Jerry Robinson56/">@@Jerry Robinson56 If you manage to squeeze out one more sentence of this condescending rhetoric, you might as well pack your bags and leave the faculty permanently.
Perhaps we could approach this with a bit of academic rigor and actually define what constitutes "condescension" here? This isn't merely a philosophical inquiry; it’s a scientific necessity, given that such a heavy accusation lacks any empirical basis unless someone has fed you a specific narrative or your own political biases are clouding your judgment. I have absolutely no desire to believe that these remarks reflect the objective stance of a scientist. Would you be so kind as to engage in a civil discussion to clear up this misunderstanding? I assure you there will be no hostility, and you shall retain full prerogative over your positions.
stormybadger8 said:It isn't actually an issue, per se.🙂> All you really need to do is hit "log out" before you close the browser, and everything should function exactly as intended... It’s a minor inconvenience, I suppose, but certainly less aggravating than being logged out repeatedly by the system itself.😳>
There is also that workaround involving running a portable version of Google Chrome from a USB drive; that way, you have zero concerns since your entire browser environment is on a stick that travels with you... Set a master password for Google Chrome, and you're essentially set.🙂> I haven't personally tested it, but if my memory serves me correctly, I read somewhere that it works without any complications whatsoever.😁>
It is entirely possible to run everything from a thumb drive; I have verified this myself. You can even run full programs, and regardless of any "restrictions," you can manage everything as a guest user. Once you've set up the drive on your main PC, you just launch the .exe file and you're good to go. 👍> I make a point of avoiding automation whenever possible.
Daniel Ward87 said:You aren't alone. Even the admins are frustrated with this, but we have to make do with the tools at our disposal.
🤣 human resources too?
All jokes aside, this feels less like a system failure and more like an attempt at digital execution, though it is entirely possible we are simply dealing with trivial connection quality issues. I manage to log in successfully, spend perhaps a minute or two typing, and then I am kicked out. I reconnect, find the post is marked private, and when I attempt to edit, I am booted from the site once again. This cycle repeats itself several times.
I have read through the rules thoroughly, and I find myself with two specific questions.
1. Who decided to move my inquiry regarding the errors made by rezon@tor—which is categorically not an appeal—into the thread dedicated to card appeals?
From what I understand, such decisions fall under the jurisdiction of the supermod. I am merely asking. Unless, of course, my understanding is flawed. Even if I am mistaken about the protocol, that topic is fundamentally misplaced there because the subject matter is entirely unrelated. It is not an appeal! The intent here is a technical clarification, not a grievance. That is 😉my intention.
Or, to be more precise:
2. If this action was taken by rezon@tor, I assume it would be only fair if he were to address the actual issue: why did he assign me 35 points and a penalty for a private message that does not even exist? In fact, he openly admitted his mistake regarding the post he misclicked on. I am not appealing his judgment or the penalty itself; rather, I am pointing out errors that are plainly evident. Furthermore, I am simply exercising the protections afforded to me by your own regulations. 🙂
It may seem trivial or absurd to you at this stage, but sweeping past mistakes under the rug serves no one. Correcting them is vital, and I have a significant reason for doing so that has nothing to do with you.
It is quite clear that rezon@tor erred twice; an appeal isn't even necessary when the facts speak for themselves, especially given his own admission, wouldn't you agree?
I sincerely hope that any potential animosity from the moderator rezon@tor does not increase the "Q factor," as moderators coming from a political background are often far too adept at smoothing over verbal transgressions to maintain true accountability.
🙂 As per tradition—if I may be so bold as to write this out—to my esteemed user,
We are dealing here with a matter of textual interpretation and an unusual request on your part that simply lacks foundation. I believe you are mature enough to accept the truth as she wrote it. A few weeks ago, I had an encounter with TurbulentFluid where I actually suggested she adopt a more laminar flow in her prose, given that she had expressed dissatisfaction with my own writing style. Therefore, this response is intended solely as a reflection upon her. Behind these words, there are actual human beings. Experience dictates that you will inevitably encounter far more complex concepts, and since the moderators already have their hands full, one might attempt to use their words to craft a more aromatic text.
Regardless, that was just a comment regarding TurbulentFluid. What has the diaspora actually contributed to us, and what have we provided for them? My intention isn't to engage in a debate over whether that statement is justified; rather, I am simply posing a thought, not issuing a call to action. Disliking someone does not equate to hating them. You rightly pointed out how contentious this is, though that only applies to those who lack the temperament to handle words. If a forum user like James Patel20—and I mean this without any ill intent—were found knocked unconscious, they could at least ask why such a response was initiated in the first place.
I would appreciate some clarification on why this was flagged as hate speech.
The reality is that the post simply provides a blunt description of the facts. It was an excellent, sincere contribution by TurbulentFluid. In my view, deleting the post was unjust enough, but issuing a permanent ban based on distorted quotes is even worse. Where exactly is the hate speech?
It would be far more interesting to see the original post from the "booster" involved—someone who clearly fails to grasp the difference between well-intentioned advice and actual vitriol. They are simply turning a blind eye.
Consequently, I am asking those in power to refrain from banning posts of this nature.
My trusty old printer has finally kicked the bucket. The error code is a bit of a headache: five orange flashes, which according to the manual indicates a catastrophic print head failure. I tried cleaning the nozzles, and if I simply seat the head in the carriage without any ink, the machine acts as if everything is perfectly fine. However, the moment I introduce the "ink," the exact same error resurfaces. Does anyone here have experience with this? Most HP printers seem to follow a similar logic. It died quite abruptly, too. I finished printing a disc, went to print something on paper, and—boom—total failure. To be fair, the final disc print was flawless. Thanks.
casualtrucker72 said:It’s true... I still love that one song of his, you know, "Because of a lovely white woman, because of her beautiful short hair..."🙂
As much as their justifications move me to tears, your explanations move me to laughter.
Daa, and he’ll be singing those tunes in Canada, where he’s heading to fundraise during his concert tour. A fitting strategy for a man of such questionable character.
Thanks for reaching out; everything is fine on my end. I simply felt an obligation to respond in good faith. You certainly have the right to remain unable to read the content if you stay logged in. One can always choose to view things offline, which would surely allow them to see clearly. I have no desire to speculate on matters where I lack direct knowledge or even a reasonable intuition. However, I consider anyone who takes the initiative to speak up as worthy of discussion, at least until they prove otherwise. I make it a point not to measure anyone’s intellect, education, or social standing, nor do I believe eloquence is the ultimate metric of success or failure. Still, there is a certain weight to volume. It all comes down to the simple capacity for thought—that is all.
A salute to supermoderator Voyk and the self-proclaimed academics who consider themselves his equals
fulcrum said:Well, my dear fellow forum member, whom I hold in high regard due to your remarkable composure and the palpable sense of decorum radiating from your posts.
I can't actually track how many posts Jerry Robinson56 has made because I blocked him somewhere around his 100th or 150th post. That was back when he promised, then lied, claiming he would answer a question I posed in that thread regarding Barack Obama.
He isn't a scientist; he’s just a charlatan draped in demagoguery, so it puzzles me why a person of your intellect chooses to "tolerate" him.
Anyway, good luck with that. 👍
As for Franck, he is a far more significant academic than the current president, whose education—which is strictly in music rather than law—is never even questioned. Yet, there is always some "brilliant mind" ready to dispute Tuđman's credentials and achievements..
And there it is: the academic fulcrum is attacked and falls.
Aside from the sheer nonsense found at the end of his "conclusions," I am left wondering why my request—/I honestly wonder why?/—to include a link /immediately in the following post/was deleted after he accused me of not responding to him. Honestly, I have no idea... I was probably just having an off day. Since he is on my ignore list, I cannot send him a PM or utilize any other method of communication.
I am one of those people who follows an argument to its logical conclusion or simply admits when I do not know the answer. I do not shy away from the truth. One can see the true capabilities of this "scientist" fulcrum through his use of bold text. I could easily list at least seven usernames who failed to provide any response when faced with actual facts, yet I do not label them liars simply because they disagree.
What am I supposed to write to the female forum members—/as we all know/—who are now joining forces with the supermoderator voyk to construct these endless litanies without a single shred of evidence, relying instead on their perceived status or the citation counts of their works? Is being a majority enough to constitute truth? Should we just gather in a mob?
What is the actual purpose of this forum? What is the point of posts like these? To offer support? Or perhaps expressing grief over a missed reply could have been handled via private message, as this post offers nothing of value beyond pure absurdity. Furthermore, in any civilized society, rights come with responsibilities; therefore, requests from regular members should be respected when they are formally made. Especially when they pertain directly to the subject at hand, rather than retreating behind a smoke screen of "I am a legend." I stated quite clearly that Franck's contribution is a null set, while your claims suggest that based solely on his recycled ideas, he belongs in a Hall of Fame. Well, prove it once and for all. Try being the vanguard for once, instead of a stagnant, regressive guard. This level of banality and perfidy is, frankly, beneath us.
I appreciate the effort and the time you put in, hollowtrucker77, I truly do. You really should have pushed the argument further to demonstrate how these patterns simply repeat themselves, though there is no need for you to waste your energy on such matters. It is ultimately the moderators' prerogative to curate "this specific image"—portraying me as someone perpetually stuck on the same loop—when all I am seeking is a fair response. Personality is fine; it adds flavor. Benevolence is one thing, and waving red cards around like party pamphlets is another, but let the discussion flow instead of constantly resorting to mudslinging. Clinton has done his time. He wasn't a saint, certainly, but I am genuinely unaware of any instance where he acted against the interests of America. It is understandable that he accepted commissions and donations, considering he was also securing contracts and bringing foreign capital into the country. People tend to pin the faults of others onto Clinton. The tragedy is that those responsible remain relevant today.
kisdhand, frojlan scarlet O`hara, I am addressing you as my second here—a leader is still a leader, after all. 😉
I have seen enough, though it hardly matters; I don't need to be proven right. However, I always seem to "get hit twice"—whether it's points or red cards—and there is never an answer provided. Not the truthful answer I expect, but no answer at all. I am not complaining about the volume of penalties, nor the fact that initial posts receive a perfunctory or non-existent reaction, only to have the "response" come down like a heavy boot crushing a patient. I have accumulated plenty of red cards due to my replies, and yes, some were inappropriate. In this thread, where ordinary folks from the neighborhood—Rice, Trump, /including Clinton/—are arrogantly, crudely, and with a perfidious morbidity attacked for actions that were demonstrably positive and brought about change, they are then slapped with total falsehoods in a manner reminiscent of a Kafkaesque trial.
As you so eloquently put it, we all stumble; it is a divine gift. But it would be a kindness to admit it—that is what makes us human. That is the only way anyone learns. The intelligent learn from the mistakes of others, and I am convinced there are intelligent people here who read this, even if only out of duty. That is the essence of it. And presumably, that is the purpose of a forum, rather than the stroking of an ego or something similar.
I find myself still questioning how certain posts simply vanish from the threads. I recall being slapped with two separate 45-point penalties right at the start, based solely on the subjective opinion of a certain "respected" forum moderator—who will undoubtedly recognize himself, given he had the audacity to label me a provocateur—and his little circle of friends.
Users like fru fru, snowdrift, and marsman—aliases clearly adopted to avoid any sense of personal accountability, in accordance with these forum rules—persistently focus their commentary on personality rather than the actual substance of the discussion. Marsman, in particular, churns out endless walls of text devoid of any logical structure or topical relevance. Furthermore, several extremely straightforward questions directed toward his own transcribed texts remain unanswered. Honestly, it comes as no surprise.
Within this very forum and its various threads, there are direct admissions from more eloquent members regarding the side they wish to align with. They have explicitly pointed out the delusions spread by this "esteemed" moderator, whose views lag behind by years, if not decades. Consequently, his contributions offer nothing to the development of the topic, nor to his own standing. The errors in his conclusions have become a sort of general doctrine; occasionally, he might admit to his own confusion, but he quickly forgets it all and reverts to square one.
It is precisely because of this that it remains unclear why these self-proclaimed "semigods" known as moderators, whose function should be perfectly transparent, resort to such muddy tactics. With all due respect to the exceptions, those of you with the black-colored nicknames will easily recognize the behavior I am describing.
I understand that you enjoy an immense degree of freedom through your arbitrary interpretation of the forum rules, but I would ask that you take a moment to actually read the last few entries in the thread linked above. Diversity of thought is essential, but infantile behavior and sheer madness are not, are they? Please kindly request that they leave the thread alone if they lack the capacity to engage in actual debate and can only contribute by irritating others with their personal digressions and cult-of-personality obscenities. When moderators selectively leave certain posts untouched, it does nothing to foster discussion; it merely breeds animosity and tension. It is entirely possible that this is the intended goal—one could laugh, I suppose—but you are ultimately staring at your own reflection in what you leave behind.
That is understandable. My initial intention was to maintain a strict focus on the events themselves and their potential interpretations, setting aside any subjective adjectives entirely. The logic behind this is that there are enough decent contributors—including those who might disagree with me—to engage with this topic in a way that is both high-quality and respectful. Naturally, a bit of humor is necessary to prevent this from devolviendo into a dry, repetitive list of grievances. There are countless minor details lost to the younger generations, nuances that are only now resurfacing to provide a starkly different perspective on everything that transpired and everything currently unfolding before us. There are historical relics out there who are hell-bent on shrouding America and the American people in a fog of dictatorship while hiding behind slogans of liberty.
"Topic moderation" Should we perhaps give the "reckless" among us three yellow warnings before they are "ejected" from the thread? It seems standard bans aren't doing the trick, nor is a permanent gray status. Or perhaps we should host the discussion here? Since this is "ground zero," everyone might be a bit more careful if they knew they were being watched. A sense of humor is always welcome. ext thx
Here I am again. This time, however, I find myself driven by both a desire and a question.
First off—my wish: I have come to the realization that my response to that provocative post was deleted, primarily because the original provocation from that esteemed forum member has also vanished into nowhere. He was met with a reasoned rebuttal for every single one of his insolent remarks. His claims are entirely misplaced, and frankly, I see similar patterns emerging from several other users as well. There are moments when it is best to simply walk away from the argument, especially since the posts being left up are often far more vulgar than anything currently under scrutiny. It would be a much more pleasant experience if the mindless drivel were also allowed to remain untouched, as those posts offer their own kind of cautionary lesson. Perhaps you might consider such a perspective once in a while.
A second matter: some time ago, my thread was removed. The process of dismantling the legacy left behind by the previous administration is proving to be an exhausting, uphill battle. It isn't merely about changing names on buildings or swapping out old symbols; it is a fundamental, systemic attempt to purge the lingering influence of a particular era from our national institutions. One would think that after all this time, the shadows cast by those old ideologies would have receded, yet we find ourselves still laboring to scrub the residue from the halls of power. It is a tedious, necessary, and frankly quite disillusioning endeavor.May I repost this? I would prefer to avoid any unnecessary agitation or embarrassment. Even back then, there was nothing remotely offensive written in the prologue, and I haven't stumbled upon a single discussion of a similar nature since. The introduction will remain neutral—a standard, straightforward American style of discourse.