Posts by Adam Collins4

Zachary Collins2 said:I honestly think it’s even harder to say to a child, though who would actually believe them anyway?!

It isn't an easy conversation for anyone to have, but I truly believe an adult has a responsibility to speak up...

Bryan Kern7, please, keep going!

I think we're missing the point here...

It’s incredibly tough for a child to admit something like that to an adult... they’ll find it much easier, if they decide to speak up at all, to vent to someone their own age.

But then there's the catch—that peer probably won't believe them, or won't even realize how devastating it actually is.

wearyhawk273 said:signature

Not quite...

Zachary Collins2 said:Perhaps you mentioned it before and I simply missed it... did you ever end up reporting this to anyone?

You guys are missing a massive point here...

People feel this crushing sense of shame over being victimized—as if they somehow played a part in it—which makes it impossible to just casually drop a bombshell like that on an adult without considering the weight of it...

George Morgan3 said:But let’s be real—it was actually the priests who were the scientists and the architects behind almost all the scientific theories that modern atheists now swear by... everything from the Big Bang to evolution...

And they used methods originally developed by the pagan Arabs... oh, the irony...

So, once again, everything regarding the atheists has fallen right back into its place...🤣

George Morgan3 said:The idea that "offense is the best defense" doesn't work when you aren't even defending yourself against anything;😉

rather, you're just refusing to see the distinction. This thread—which has a pretty vague title and deals with a widespread deviant phenomenon—is being aimed at one specific institution and profession with some sort of twisted logic (if you can even call it that), turning them into the sole scapegoat. It’s becoming painfully obvious that all these attacks on the church have less and less to do with pedophilia or sexual abuse, and more and more with becoming an end in themselves.

"The best defense is a good offense" is an old bit of wisdom from ancient Japanese martial arts... applying it to contexts like this is nothing more than a glaring sign of ignorance, plain and simple.

So, let me say it again: once some other institution starts systematically shielding pedophiles and covering up their cases, then—and only then—can we talk about something comparable to what the Church does...

It shows a certain modus operandi...

Feel free to point out if, say, the FAA started hiding their own pedophiles or giving orders on how to cover them up...

wearyhawk273 said:signature

Since you love signing off on everything so much, why don't you act as my co-signer for a loan? Or does the concept of actually understanding what you're putting your name to fly right over your head?

Look, when you IT specialists, air traffic controllers, or whatever other "group" decides to cover up their own pedophilia—exactly like the Church does with its own—then by all means, go ahead and sign away your soul...

Until then, you’re just out here playing damage control for frustrated pedophiles masquerading as priests and their whole circle...

Sam Green73 said:But if you look at my fourth point, it actually says:

Honestly, if you had spent just a third of the energy you used on this explanation on your initial post, the thread would still be standing.
I can see you've gathered your arguments and connections, though—maybe try again with a fresh opening message.

Those extra sentences are a textbook example of turning a discussion into a personal attack (basically trolling).
Avoid doing that, and I'll have no problem penalizing the other person if they start provoking you.
When two people start bickering like this, they both end up getting a cooling-off period.
It takes two to tango.

The comment about "two days ago" is particularly hilarious to me.
Do you really think I live on this forum?

p.s. It’s honestly great seeing how folks react when they get hit with the exact same linguistic patterns they use themselves.

Bringing a debate down to personal attacks is an ad hominem fallacy, which—as anyone who’s read a book on logic or philosophy knows—is a total dealbreaker in any serious discussion...

Trolling is a completely different beast...

As is cherry-picking someone’s words out of context or responding to only one tiny fragment of a post...

Adam Collins4 says:
And others have already been sounding the alarm on that...

Sam Green73:

"So this is your idea of being constructive?

Others have already warned you about how you carry yourself.
It would be a lot easier for me to hold that other guy accountable if his approach was actually the only one that wasn't messy."

You’re lecturing me on being "constructive," yet you cherry-pick one single sentence from my entire post just because it rubbed you the wrong way—a sentence you can't even properly wrap your head around?

That’s your version of being constructive? Honestly, have some shame...

As for that one person being offensive—you've had more than two days to report them, but you haven't... so, once again, just another pathetic attempt on your part to stall...

boldcyclist18 said:Of course he’s lying. He lied about his first collisions, too. Claiming he blacked out? Give me a break. If someone actually lost consciousness behind the wheel, they wouldn't be back on the road anytime soon. He lied because he’s arrogant, entitled, and a complete crook who thinks he’s untouchable by the law. Honestly, it’s a pattern; other big shots in his party are cut from the same cloth. You’ve got one person killing their own dog just for running into the street, and another running over a police officer who was simply trying to issue a ticket for illegal parking. It’s all the same breed of person.

Why wouldn't he drive if he passed out once? I know a guy—a traveling salesman—who blacked out on an interstate outside of Atlanta last year, and he’s still driving every single day. It’s his livelihood, after all...

Charles Martin2 said:

Is that my line
just some cash for me!!
🙂

Nope—it’s not. The guy didn't even bother to quote you properly; he just did a lazy copy-paste of your post with a few tweaks, making it look like the words were yours...

Though, honestly, maybe they are... I mean, you popped up right after I asked my question... highly suspicious...

Nicole Murphy said:Look, I'm not saying it's a direct court matter—that’s out of their jurisdiction—but an irrevocable resignation would be the inevitable fallout here.

It wasn't Vito, it was someone else. 😁

If I'm remembering the sports law correctly, anyone facing criminal charges is automatically stripped of their positions...

Nicole Murphy said:Look, this isn't about whether Čačić wants to step down; it’s about what the courts decide. If that happens, he can't hide behind some "moral responsibility" excuse for his resignation.

Cacic caused the deaths of two people.
That's basically manslaughter at this point.
He needs to resign from every single public position he holds.
And he definitely needs to lose his driver's license.
The guy is a legitimate danger on the road.
A car in the hands of someone like him is nothing short of a lethal weapon!

Amen!

nope, the court decision doesn't change a thing... a judge can't actually force him to step down...

Charles Martin2, is that you?>

Nicole Murphy said:It’s obvious why he stepped down from his role at AT&T—he actually feels some sense of moral responsibility there. But when it comes to leading the Democratic Party? He couldn't care less. 🤷

That resignation is going to become permanent—basically automatic—once the courts in Canada kick off their legal proceedings against him. In other words, the moment the indictment actually hits the table...

Charles Martin2 said:

Cacic caused the deaths of two people
manslaughter should be on the table here
everyone in public office needs to resign immediately
plus he needs to lose his driver's license for good
he's a danger on the road
a car in hands like that is basically a weapon!

He'll face trial for a fatal traffic accident—that's how they usually phrase it in the legal system, I think, or something close to that...

He actually submitted his resignation for part of his duties, but it was rejected... what's your take on that?

And the verdict will likely include a driving ban, which usually runs anywhere from two to five years...

Charles Martin2 said:

A-ha!
So you're just "debating hypothetically" while the rest of us are all liars
and apparently need to post more than you just to have the right to speak!!

I didn't cut anything out. I posted the link to the entire thread!!
If anyone actually cares, they can read the whole thing themselves!

You asked for proof, so I gave it!
The rest of this is just me being done with you
because you demand proof from everyone and call them liars or frauds...
Anyone you disagree with gets labeled that way, while you act like you're the expert
making hypothetical guesses just to defend whoever's probably paying your bills!

Glad I finally met you—the smartest guy on this forum in history!!!

😍

No, you told a lie... because you claimed I was proving how a Ford hit the fence... which isn't what happened... and as long as you keep making stuff up like that, I'm going to call you a liar, because that's exactly what you are...

So, here we go—just another lie in a long line of them... I was simply explaining how one could deduce what happened beforehand, assuming it even happened at all...

Just like how you lied about me saying Čačić wasn't at fault... you're a persistent liar, and people keep catching you in those lies... starting all the way back during that presidential election thread...

Charles Martin2 said:

What are you even talking about? What correlation?! And where did I ever mention that?!?!

It's literally provable here that Čačić slammed into a car that had already hit a guardrail!

You're doing the exact same thing right now—trying to claim one impact is bigger than the other just by looking at photos!!!

You're claiming there's no such thing as an "adjustment" formula in the European Union, which I'm gonna prove wrong later!

There's an "if," sure, but I'm done following your trolling!
I've noticed you call everyone a liar, a blowhard, or a loudmouth...

Honestly, you're more exhausting than anyone else here!!
I'm waiting for that famous European Union classification of yours—it's about time!!

I am not "proving" anything; we are discussing a hypothetical scenario regarding whether that Ford hit the guardrail before or after the collision...

Stop lying and cherry-picking posts like a fraud—show the whole conversation.

I am well and truly done with you, your lies, and your constant manipulation...

Once again, you're displaying a total lack of understanding regarding the relationship between velocity and friction—just like the first time, when I suggested you hit the car in front because you were speeding, and you insisted it wasn't speed, but rather sudden braking...

Son, that is a fundamental failure to grasp the connection between speed and frictional force... and frankly, I don't feel like teaching you physics.

Between your nonsense about hardness versus strength and your confusion over bluntness versus softness, you've made it clear you don't grasp the basics—even though two different people have tried to explain them to you.

And for the record, where did I ever say he wasn't at fault? Where did I write that Čačić isn't to blame?

I'll be waiting for you to produce proof for those lies...

Charles Martin2 said:

At first you were all like—if he’s guilty!!!!
You even denied that people actually have to adapt to driving conditions!

Now, just because there's a mention of Cacic hitting him with a car,
you immediately call everything suspicious and start counting his posts...

This isn't exactly clean play!!
Just like those EU classifications or those court experts...

If anyone actually paid me to represent people on this Forum,
I’d quit immediately and give the money back. I’d rather take down any accused
by calling them liars, calling them incompetent, or saying we need to wait for a verdict...
And all of this—na rub politika !!!! !!!!!

This isn't some sponsored topic...

At least you were willing to admit stuff is learned during freshman year of college,
but now you've dropped all the way down to middle school and elementary level logic!!
😍

I wasn't denying that you have to adjust your speed based on road conditions... I was just pointing out that it's not the only factor involved—there are other variables at play too...

Look, if you get hit by a car while you're on a motorcycle, things don't end well... especially if you're sitting around waiting for the police to show up. In most cases, an ambulance is the absolute bare minimum you're going to need...

And yeah, I went down to the elementary school level, because honestly, some of you people on this forum clearly haven't even mastered the basics...

Once again, you're showing a total lack of understanding regarding the correlation between speed and friction... just like that other guy above who can't distinguish types of collisions and doesn't understand the most fundamental laws of energy transfer...

How am I supposed to explain this stuff to you people?

And by the way, where exactly did I say "if he's at fault"?

Charles Martin2 said:

Like people don't have anything better to do than hang out on this Forum
defending their favorites—like you!!
Look who showed up in the Cacic !!!! thread!!

You're the one who's actually interesting!!!!!

Why do you never ask for proof from the people you actually agree with???!!

If I say he's guilty, how exactly am I defending him?

Since when does telling people to wait for actual, relevant data count as "defending" someone?

The days of the mob mentality and the mindless pile-ons ended a long time ago...

Nicole Murphy said:Adam Collins4, are you kidding me right now? For real?

Is there some kind of connection between you and Čačić? Because let’s be real—the facts don't lie. He was speeding, and that's the main reason this tragedy happened. Period.

Of course it’s obvious he was going faster than the car in front of him; the only real question is by how much...

I never said he wasn't responsible, or that he isn't to blame... I'm just saying we need to pin down the exact degree of fault...

That's all...

And regarding that other topic—where some random guy popped up on the Forum—it always smells fishy to me when someone with, what, three posts to their name, suddenly shows up claiming to be an eyewitness to a situation everyone else is dying to get the backstory on...

Charles Martin2 said:

Oh sure, you and Cacic are the only ones who know the truth
while the rest of us are just liars and idiots!!!

We trust you guys more than our own eyes!!
Don't act like you didn't show up here on purpose!!

What was that you said about those previous failures by Cacic? How did they actually go down?!

I’m just noticing how a guy with practically zero posts suddenly pops up on a thread about Čačić, acting like he has some deep, personal history with him... which is interesting, to say the very least...