Posts by Gregory Garcia

I really have to give a shout-out to Henry Cox78 👍

Eric Newman2 said:Ah... Cypress Hill...
Ah...

Aha 😍

Jose White18 said:What now?

Actually, this is quite a good thing 👍

Both of the US chats have been moved over to the Offtopic subforum today.
The mod's explanation goes something like this:

brightridge59 said: The forum is lagging pretty badly, so I didn't want to post a full breakdown right away. Basically, we all agreed to move the chats here because they aren't really necessary for the main boards. So, hey fans, welcome to the new home. 🙂

My question is—who exactly doesn't need these chats? What kind of reasoning is that, really?

As for us forum members, we clearly *do* need them, since that’s where we actually hang out. We aren't some exclusive little clique, either; we're just a group of people who gathered in the US subforum and started a chat—one that even two former US moderators participated in. Every single person from the US section has always been more than welcome in that chat.

The current US moderators don't participate in the chat themselves, so I guess that's why they "don't need" it. They've just casually—and, if I'm being honest, somewhat arrogantly—moved everything over to Offtopic.

There were regularly over 50 people active in that chat.

If this is being done strictly to reduce the load on the server, then I suppose *all* chats from *every* subforum should be moved to Offtopic. If that's truly the case, fine—everything is above board. However, if the US forum is being singled out as an exception, it really makes me wonder about the objectivity, the impartiality, and the actual motives behind the moderators' decision to act this way.

I'd appreciate it if the administrators could weigh in on this. 🙂

Mark Torres14 said:I’m asking you nicely—show me, or maybe just point to specific post numbers—where exactly am I making this about myself? This isn't some personal vendetta; I'm sticking strictly to the topic we were actually discussing. Aren't you just pulling that out of thin air?
What’s the actual issue here? Did I somehow offend you without even realizing it, or are you just jumping into a conflict that has nothing to do with you just to feel like you're making a point?
The worst part is, you weren't even participating in the discussion to begin with.😕

Again, you keep saying I wasn't part of the discussion.😕 Well, even if I wasn't, what does that matter? This thread is specifically about a complaint regarding moderation, not a general debate. Personally, I thought the moderation was fine, and that’s what this whole thing is about. I’ve been reading through the thread, and as someone just observing, I think things run better when moderation is handled well, so that's why I'm weighing in.👍

But no, you want me to prove where you're being repetitive. Fine, starting from this page, here are a few quotes for you:
http://www.americanforum.com/showthread.php?t=576758&page=9

Mark Torres14 said:That’s why the question is really about how much WikiLeaks actually matters to transparency and how much of that data is truly legitimate.

Mark Torres14 said:I suspect there's a much broader context at play here—events happening "under the surface" that serve an entirely different purpose, all while being conveniently masked by this fog of transparency, information access, freedom of the press, and all that other nonsense they feed us.

Mark Torres14 said:If they actually considered them dangerous, they would find a way to stop them from publishing anything at all.

Over the course of several pages, you've basically been asserting on an ad-hoc basis that the leak sites and everything connected to them are just a massive hoax—a deception orchestrated by governments, administrations, and power centers. And you just keep hammering that same point (flooding the zone, really), until the moderator eventually steps in to warn you, or maybe even deletes the posts—I'm not entirely sure. And then, naturally, you complain about it, and well, here we are.🤷

There were others in the thread who shared that perspective too, but they only mentioned it once or twice and didn't get flagged, so you aren't the only one with those views. It seems like you're the only one the moderator felt the need to caution. How does that work?

Is this enough evidence for you—or are you going to grill me again about why I’m weighing in now instead of having chimed in when the thread first started? 😉

Mark Torres14 said:since you and I have never actually debated here—and honestly, you haven't even popped up in the philosophy subforum in the last four years—I think it’s only fair that you point out exactly where I’ve been endlessly repeating myself with the intention of wearing down and provoking anyone who dares to disagree.

I’m not entirely sure if we’ve had a debate before, but I don't see why our past discussions should be a prerequisite for me explaining my position here, right?
Actually, if anything, one might argue that if we *had* debated previously, it could raise questions about whether I'm being truly impartial in this situation.

As for the claim that I don't participate in the subforums—well, that just isn't accurate:

http://www.exampleusforum.com/showthread.php?t=569742

Now, there might be some other motive behind repeating the same points (though I'm not quite sure what?), but the most likely scenario is that someone repeats themselves to exhaust everyone else—and once people finally stop responding, they claim victory by saying the opposition simply ran out of arguments.
Besides, I feel like it’s just plain impolite to others, because it implies they aren't even reading the posts if you feel the need to say the exact same thing over and over again.🤷

Argumentum ad nauseam—or the argument from repetition, or even argumentum ad infinitum—is essentially when an argument is made repeatedly (perhaps by various people) until everyone else just loses interest in discussing it.

That kind of behavior is actually penalized even on much less "serious" subforums. 😉

I’m weighing in on the moderation side of things here to offer my support, because I really do believe that, in this instance, the goal was to try and elevate the quality of the discussion in a proper way.👍

I’ve been following this thread silently for a while now—not saying I haven't had thoughts on it, but I didn't want to jump in until I had a chance to digest everything said here.

I think Dennis Rogers6 is doing a solid job with the moderation duties; honestly, I'm all for it.👍

That being said, I really can't stand those "arguments" where someone claims, "you're too young to understand this." To me, that’s just blatant trolling, and frankly, it doesn't reflect well on anyone who resorts to that kind of logic.🙄

As for Mark Torres14, I feel like his position is pretty clear, and I can see exactly where he's coming from. I believe we should be able to tolerate a specific viewpoint, though—with the caveat that if someone starts hammering the exact same point over and over again across multiple posts, it stops being productive and becomes a problem for the community. Basically, if someone (whether it’s Mark Torres14 this time, or someone else later on) begins repeating themselves just to wear down or provoke those with differing opinions, that feels like flooding or spamming, and it really ought to be sanctioned.👍

Of course, on a forum like this, finding that fine line between expanding on an argument and just being repetitive is tricky—but I suppose that’s what the moderators are there for, to decide where that boundary lies. In this particular instance, I think the line was drawn quite appropriately.🙂

🙂 I am honestly so gutted 😢

I had this perfect chance to catch a show—one where there wouldn't be any of those last-minute hipster crowds crowding everything up—but it just slipped through my fingers 😢

Wait... actually, scratch that... I guess I'm part of that crowd too 😲

Hey, would you mind opening the gate? 🤣

Jerry Roberts said:I suppose you hold quite a grudge against the USA Biathlon Association after all this mess...
Well, sure. The media made it sound like I was the one who turned my back on America. But honestly? It was the USA Biathlon Association that turned their backs on me—they just wouldn't release my paperwork. All that nonsense they're spinning about "conditions"... I mean, I can hardly believe they're spreading such nonsense.

It seems like they were only ever interested in the money...
Most likely. I’ve been working with these people for ten years now, so I know exactly how they operate. They might try to paint a different picture for everyone else, but they can't fool me.

Do people recognize you on the streets in Cleveland? What has the reaction been like here in the States following your move?
People in Cleveland definitely know me. In this whole situation, everyone seems to be on my side. They understand the reality of things here in the US versus what happens elsewhere, and they get what I need to do to keep my career moving forward. I’m sure there will be some negative feedback, too, but I doubt anyone would actually approach me with bad intentions. They’d probably rather hide behind pseudonyms on internet forums. Those are just your typical "keyboard warriors" who don't have anything better to do with their lives.

So, you're holding the USA Biathlon Association responsible for everything...
Of course. According to the news, I betrayed America. In reality, it was the USA Biathlon Association that betrayed me by refusing to give me my release papers. All this talk about specific conditions... I just can't believe the stories they're telling.

Clearly, it was always just about the cash for them...
Exactly. 😬 I’ve dealt with this group for ten years; I know them inside and out. They can try to spin it for the public, but they can't pull the wool over my eyes.

Are you recognized out in public in Cleveland? How has the American public reacted to your departure?
They know me, and honestly, everyone is rooting for me. They understand what it takes to advance a career at this level. There will be some negativity, I assume, but they won't say it to my face. They prefer to hide under fake names on forums. Just a bunch of trolls with nothing better to do.

🙂

So, Fak says—as Schtemayzl already pointed out—that the USA Biathlon Association promised him his release, and if he hadn't won an Olympic medal, none of us would probably even know about this, nor would we really care 🤷.

When there's a medal involved, there's money involved—and for an organization like the USA Biathlon Association that survives on scraps, that's a significant amount. 🙂 He needs to move on to continue his career, and at the end of the day, I can only say I wish him nothing but luck and success in his future endeavors, and thanks to him for that medal—it really brought us all a lot of joy. 🙂
Naturally, I'll be cheering him on at the next Winter Olympics. 👍

Jessica Cox2 said:Alright then, let me hear the logic: why is it okay for Republican members to insult people, but Democrats aren't allowed to? If there’s actually a rational reason for that, then I’m a complete idiot.

That’s just not true. 😉

a cheerful rocker...🤣

I actually missed this one because the thread just sort of sank into the depths—I totally lost track of it! 🤷

But you know what? I think I'll go ahead and toss this into my favorites right now. 😍

I’m honestly pretty bummed that this thread got locked because I really wanted to get back to sinkhole... now I can't, which—of course—is such a shame. 😁

I actually had no idea people were filing reports against this; I’m genuinely curious, though—what was the reasoning behind asking for the thread to be pulled? 😕

The Music subforum is just... different. You can say certain musicians or bands are morons, total hacks, or complete disasters, whereas you couldn't really do that elsewhere—I mean, you wouldn't go into a Science subforum and just call some scientist an idiot for no reason. That’s just the fundamental difference between these specific boards.

The topic itself leans a little bit toward trolling, sure, since that's how people talk about certain artists—but if I recall correctly, that’s allowed here. In fact, whenever someone used to complain in the past (myself included, I guess) that we should provide actual arguments for those kinds of comments, the usual response was basically telling them to lighten up, because this is the Music board and you’re free to write whatever you want. 🤷

My whole point was that on the Music board, we aren't expected to provide deep, reasoned arguments for everything, because the prevailing logic here is truly just "to each their own" regarding taste. And once you accept that premise, you inevitably run into the kind of trolling we saw happening right here in this topic.

Take the Literature subforum, for example. Even there, people call dead or living authors idiots, or label certain books as absolute garbage, and it's tolerated. It seems to be the consensus that when it comes to art, there aren't any hard boundaries for discussion; everyone has the right to say something is legendary or total trash without needing to offer a formal dissertation on why.

I’m not entirely sure if the rules have shifted recently or if I'm just out of the loop on some new policy...

Regardless, the way this thread was set up—using this specific style and tone—is very similar to how things are written in magazines like Sony Music, Spin Media, or even in outlets like Nomad Capitalist and Dopamine. This thread just uses a pop culture reference as a framework to discuss music, which is exactly how it was framed from the start.

So, at the end of the day, it’s clearly about music, which makes me think it was a mistake to shut the thread down for that reason. 😉

Look, guys, I’m not really interested in arguing over who ripped off whom—that honestly doesn't matter much to me—it's just that I find it pretty pointless to sit through a band where everyone is just constant whining and complaining 😁

I might have actually shown up, but:

Nirvana also sued nirvana during this phase , alleging that The Riff for The latter's song " Come as you ara was copied from the riff for their song "Eighties". The lawsuit was dropped after the sudden death of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain.

That controversial track

man, what a mess of a lawsuit 👎

jadeseal4 said:Aren't those "surviving" topics a bit biased too?

The Republican Party's CBS is sidelining politics during an election year
Should the Republican Party be declared a criminal organization?

If you're referring to topics like these—well, I suppose I agree they walk a fine line. Especially that first one; though, I guess the second would only be truly biased if it were phrased as "The Republican Party is a criminal organization" without the question mark at the end.

That first headline could easily be read as "Republican Party censorship at CBS," and yeah, I’ll admit that feels like a biased way to frame it.

However, since we are in an election year, I really do think the topic itself remains relevant under this heading—but I won't go into a long explanation here, otherwise I might drift off-topic.

Anyway, I don't have much else to add, so I'll just say hello and hope we see some slightly better thread titles moving forward! 👋

jadeseal4 said:Who exactly gave you the authority to decide what counts as "current news"??

Aren't these topics, well, a little bit biased??

The Republican Party's CBS is sidelining Politics during an election year
Should the Republican Party be declared a criminal organization?
Jadranka—the queen of national lies (or just really good PR)

Please, I beg you, don't try to defend the indefensible.
Just try being more democratic and objective—since that’s supposedly what you stand for.

I mean, you kind of abandoned any claim to democracy or objectivity the second you accused the moderators of bias, even though you don't seem to mind the bias in the topics themselves 🤷

So, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're the one defending the indefensible. 🙂

As for what's "current"—I honestly don't see how things like Šušak, those old transcripts, and stuff like that are relevant right now. Those are ancient history; people have been debating them for years and everything that needed saying has already been said.
It's like if someone started a thread titled "The Economic Successes of Zlatko Mateša's Government"—that wouldn't belong on the front page of the Politics section; it belongs in History or some deep archive. I don't need special authority to know that; it's just common sense that a major political topic can only stay "current" for a few months at most, not years. If a political issue stays interesting for years, it's moved into the realm of history or specific niche subforums.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of your average user. If I opened up the Politics section and saw nothing but headlines from these relocated threads, I'd probably give up before I ever found something actually happening today—like shipbuilding issues, flooding, or similar current events. I guess I shouldn't have to "prove" that, right?

So, in my opinion, moving those specific topics to where they won't clutter the main feed—but where anyone interested can still find them—actually makes the subforum much higher quality. 👍

Eric Collins5 said:Look, just take a second to look at the very first word in the title of the thread you opened here in the complaints section—and then, if you want, go ahead and compare that to the titles of all those threads that ended up getting moved over to the Crazy House...

jadeseal4 said:That isn't really the core of the appeal—I mean, if we’re being honest, that's not even what the grievance is actually about.

I think what he was actually trying to get at is that those moved threads were handled in a pretty biased way—which makes it a bit ironic, I guess, since you just finished complaining about how biased the moderation itself is.

jadeseal4 said:Here are a few topics that have been getting tossed into the madhouse lately—it’s all getting a bit wild, I guess.


It feels like there’s this whole Synchronized attack happening against the American language—it’s almost hard to wrap my head around how coordinated it all seems. I guess you could say it's a deliberate attempt to shift everything, though maybe that's just my cynical take on it. It really feels like a calculated move to push a certain narrative by controlling the very way we communicate.
When we look at "Yugonostalgia" as a historical phenomenon—and I mean really dive into it—it’s much more than just some simple longing for the "good old days." It’s actually quite a complex psychological knot, isn't it? I guess you could say it’s less about wanting to bring back the actual political structure and more about a deep-seated nostalgia for a specific sense of stability and social cohesion that feels like it vanished overnight. It’s almost like when people look back at certain eras of American history—maybe even the mid-century period—with this idealized lens, ignoring the systemic flaws while clinging to the feeling of communal identity. For many, that era represented a predictable rhythm of life, a certain level of social safety, and a shared cultural language that felt... well, solid. Today, everything feels so fragmented and hyper-individualistic, which probably explains why that sentiment keeps bubbling up to the surface. Maybe it’s a way of processing the chaos of the transition to the modern era. When the old structures collapsed, it wasn't just the government that changed; it was the very fabric of how people related to one another. So, when someone expresses this kind of nostalgia, they might not be making a political statement per se—though it can certainly get political—but rather an emotional one. They’re mourning a lost sense of belonging. It's a fascinating, albeit messy, part of our collective memory that we have to navigate if we ever want to truly understand the current social landscape.
The Rehabilitation of Draža Mihailović—it’s one of those topics that just seems to spark endless debate whenever it comes up, isn't it? I’ve been thinking about it lately, and honestly, there is so much nuance involved that it's hard to settle on a single perspective without feeling like you're oversimplifying things. It’s a heavy subject, perhaps even more so than most people realize, especially when you consider how deeply it touches upon our national memory and the way we view historical justice. I guess what I mean is, when we talk about this kind of legal or historical restoration, we aren't just talking about paperwork or court rulings; we are talking about the very soul of how a country reconciles with its past. There are so many layers to peel back here—the political motivations, the shifting tides of public opinion, and the actual, granular details of what happened during those turbulent years. Maybe some see it as a necessary step toward healing old wounds, while others—and I can certainly understand this camp—worry that it opens a door to glorifying figures who remain incredibly controversial. It’s a delicate balancing act, really. On one hand, you have the drive to correct what many perceive as a massive judicial error from decades ago—a sense that someone was unfairly targeted by a previous regime's agenda. On the other hand, you have the legitimate fear that such moves might reignite old tensions or distort the lived experiences of those who suffered under different circumstances. It’s complicated, deeply layered, and frankly, a bit exhausting to untangle sometimes! But I suppose that’s just the nature of history, isn't it? It rarely gives us easy answers, and it almost always leaves us with more questions than we started with.
It feels like the fascists are launching a full-scale assault on California!
September 11, 2010 — Udbina
American Reconciliation
Is it actually possible that we’re going to lose Gojko Šušak Avenue? I mean, it feels like things are constantly shifting around us—one minute a street name is set in stone, and the next, there's all this talk about changing it. It makes you wonder where the goalposts are even moving toward lately. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the local government handles it, but it definitely leaves a bit of a sour taste if they decide to go through with it.
How exactly does a guy who scrapped the transcripts actually claim to have democratized America?
A total national disgrace.

And there are quite a few other pressing, current topics that—if you ask me—definitely deserve their own dedicated space over in the Politics section.

Deleted threads:
Is Barack Obama actually a Yugonostalgic? It’s one of those questions that seems to spark endless debate whenever people start digging into the old political divisions—I mean, it really gets people fired up, doesn't it? I guess it depends entirely on how you define the term, but if you're looking at his stance on certain historical legacies, some folks are pretty convinced he leans that way. It’s a tricky bit of politics, honestly—there isn't really a simple yes or no answer when you're dealing with such loaded labels.
...and so on.

Honestly, looking at the titles of these threads, the bias is just screaming at you—it’s pretty much impossible to have a real conversation when things are framed this way. It feels rigged, I guess. Anyone who tries to jump in with a different perspective is immediately forced into this corner where they’re basically agreeing with the premise of the title just to be heard. You end up stuck in this defensive, "on trial" position from second one—which, let's be real, isn't exactly a democratic or even a decent way to hold a discussion.

Look, you can't even get a fair word in when someone throws out a label like "Barack Obama is a Yugonostalgic"—it’s just too biased from the jump. It basically traps whoever is trying to talk back into this corner where they're forced to defend the President himself—and honestly, as soon as you engage with a topic framed that way, you've already tacitly accepted their premise. I guess you could say the whole discussion is pretty much dead on arrival; it's just fundamentally unconstructive.👎

I really feel like we need to point out the fact that the topics being quoted here aren't even remotely relevant—let alone important—considering the massive economic crisis currently hitting the United States. In my opinion, it’s actually pretty damaging to have threads about Yugonostalgia, Šušak, old transcripts, and things like that taking up prime real estate on the front page of the Politics section... especially when there are so many much more pressing and urgent issues facing the country right now. 🙂

Look—after everything that’s been read and written here, the honest truth is that the thread wasn't taken down because of that specific post, but rather because of you guys in the moderation crew.

Once you finally wrap your head around that, maybe it'll make sense why I've spent so much time—clearly to no avail, I suppose—writing all this stuff here.

It's pretty obvious you think my posts are just mindless rambling, since you haven't actually acknowledged a single point I've made; instead, you just go straight for the jugular, calling me names like Nazi or sick...

Anyway, take care. 👋

Michael Taylor8 said:I guess I would really love it if you could answer me too, because I’m just so curious to hear an unbiased opinion.😁

So, basically:
1. Is it actually against the rules here to just ignore someone and totally shut down their right to appeal?
2. Is it allowed under the rules to stop regular users who aren't even banned from starting new threads, or to prevent more than two people from the ZiDic crowd from hanging out in the same topics?
3. Is it okay by the rules to block non-banned users from cloning things just because they happen to be from ZiDic, while everyone else gets to do it without any trouble at all?
4. And is it really within the rules to give Michael Taylor8 a permanent ban just because he was being perfectly polite and asking questions on the official PDF meant for that very purpose? Especially since it came with a little suggestion that he was being boring and should maybe go find some community service to do instead?

I mean, since you keep bringing up the rules so much, maybe you could help me understand these weird inconsistencies? I always just assumed that the whole point of the rules was that every single user who isn't banned gets treated exactly the same, but it feels like that's not quite the case if you're part of the ZiDic group. There's probably more to it too, I suppose. 🙂

Thanks!

Look, I’ll go out on a limb here and stick up for you guys over at ZiDic—I truly believe it’s a positive thing. Honestly, one of the whole points of this forum is that a few of you might end up clashing there, only to realize you actually have a lot in common and end up becoming friends.

Look, I really hope you aren't going to try and demand that the rules of this forum be bent just to suit your specific needs—you know, acting like the guidelines don't apply to you or should be rewritten to accommodate your preferences. We have thousands of members here, whereas you guys are only about a dozen, so expecting everyone to pivot around you just isn't how this works. It honestly wouldn't be fair to the rest of the community.

I’m going to try my best to give you some logical answers to these questions—though, I guess, logic can be a bit subjective depending on how you look at things!

Michael Taylor8 said:I guess I would really love it if you could answer me too, because I’m just so curious to hear an unbiased opinion.😁

So, basically:
1. Is it actually against the rules here to just ignore someone and totally shut down their right to appeal?
2. Is it allowed under the rules to stop regular users who aren't even banned from starting new threads, or to prevent more than two people from the ZiDic crowd from hanging out in the same topics?
3. Is it okay by the rules to block non-banned users from cloning things just because they happen to be from ZiDic, while everyone else gets to do it without any trouble at all?
4. And is it really within the rules to give Michael Taylor8 a permanent ban just because he was being perfectly polite and asking questions on the official PDF meant for that very purpose? Especially since it came with a little suggestion that he was being boring and should maybe go find some community service to do instead?

I mean, since you keep bringing up the rules so much, maybe you could help me understand these weird inconsistencies? I always just assumed that the whole point of the rules was that every single user who isn't banned gets treated exactly the same, but it feels like that's not quite the case if you're part of the ZiDic group. There's probably more to it too, I suppose. 🙂

Thanks!

Well, when it comes to an appeal—it’ll certainly be taken into consideration and read through—but whether or not you actually get a response really depends on how much merit there is to your argument. I mean, let's be honest here: if you’re breaking the rules—say, by cloning an account after the original one was banned—and then you turn around and complain about the sanctions... well, I guess there isn't much to appeal, is there?

You didn't even mention it—not once! How's everything going? Look, I’m not saying we should stop people from starting new threads—that’s just part of how things work here—but there’s a line, right? If someone decides to spin up sixteen different complaint threads all using the exact same grievance, just because they’re having a hard time swallowing the fact that they aren't in the right... well, I think that’s something we can, and honestly should, step in on. It's not really about suppressing discussion; it's more about preventing someone from cluttering the place just because they refuse to accept a reality that doesn't suit them.

EDIT:Regarding this other matter—if two people from the thread end up posting over on the other topic instead, I suppose that’s perfectly fine if they aren't active here. I suppose I should probably step in here—if you don't mind me jumping into this conversation—but it feels like we’ve drifted a bit too far from the original point, doesn't it? It’s funny how quickly a discussion can veer off track, though I guess that’s just the nature of things once everyone starts weighing in. Let's try to pull it back together, shall we? If someone starts a thread like that—well, they really ought to be sanctioned for it. Honestly, I’ve always felt that things should be handled much more strictly on Reddit when it comes to stuff like this.

Look, I think we need to be clear about what constitutes actual abuse here. If someone decides to clone an account just because they’re bored with their old handle—or maybe they just want a fresh start—that’s perfectly normal behavior. It happens. But there is a massive difference between that and someone maintaining five different clones just to mess around—that is straight-up abuse, and frankly, it's disrespectful to everyone else on the forum. Maybe for one person, it feels like a harmless little joke, but if it makes things exhausting or frustrating for the majority of the community, then it's a problem.

Now, 4.tonček—or rather, our friend here—introduced himself as your buddy and asked the exact same thing you did. It’s pretty obvious he’s being biased, too; I mean, it feels like he only jumped in because of this specific topic. Besides, if he really is your close friend, one might start to wonder if you're actually using his handle just to bypass a ban.

Honestly, I don't see anything illogical about it—if anything, it makes perfect sense to me. 😉