Posts by Anonymous

Daniel Ward87 said:I'm reporting everyone and everything...☕

😁

Daniel Ward87

Honestly, same here. 🙂

Good luck, everyone! 👋

The "Vory v Zakone" – those notorious figures from the old-school underworld. It’s a deep, dark rabbit hole of criminal hierarchy and unwritten codes that feels like something straight out of a gritty crime drama. [User Name] says:
Huge props to the people actually putting in the work on this and getting lawyers involved. They’re some of the few folks around here who are actually taking action instead of just running their mouths. Honestly, seeing this kind of initiative is exactly why I even signed up for this forum. Since I'm a bit pressed for time, I'll keep my contribution brief...

Article 32a

Under the current fan legislation, anyone subject to a protective order under Article 32, Section 1, Subsection 4 is required to hand over their passport to the local police station no later than seven days before kickoff. Additionally, they have to report to the designated precinct at least four hours before the game starts and remain on-site for two hours following the final whistle.

Here’s my take: if we’re already forced to hand over our passports seven days before kickoff—which is a total joke and could be overturned any second—then why on earth do we still have to check in at the police station four hours before the game? And if we're stuck doing that check-in, what's the point of them having the power to hold us at the station for two hours until the match ends? Honestly, since Ivica Todorić is going to rent us his helicopter, there’s no excuse for us missing the game.🙄

So, here’s my take: if we're already grabbing our passports just two or three days before the big game, there really isn't any point in bothering the local police station with notifications.

This is getting out of hand. We aren't going to sit by while they start seizing passports, and we aren't taking kindly to being forced to check in with the police anymore, either.

Our proposal leans toward the English model. We’re talking about banning someone from entering the stadium and its immediate vicinity if they have a final court ruling against them—under the threat of heavy prison time. Honestly, that’s even tougher than what they do over there. The best part? It avoids all the police harassment, the constant stalking at work or school, or having your entire neighborhood think you're some kind of drug dealer just because you lit a flare. Plus, it would save the police and the courts a massive amount of paperwork and wasted man-hours. ☕

Well, there you have it...

Shout out to the people actually putting in the work and hiring legal counsel here. You’re some of the few folks who actually take action instead of just running their mouths. Honestly, this thread is the whole reason I even signed up for this forum. Since I'm a bit short on time, here's my two cents...

Section 32a

Any individual subject to a protective order under Section 32, Subsection 1, Paragraph 4, is required to surrender their passport to the local police station no later than 7 days before the game. Furthermore, they must check in at the station no later than 4 hours before kickoff and remain there for two hours until the match concludes...

Here’s my thought: if we already have to hand over our passports a full week before the game (which is total nonsense and could be challenged legally), why on earth do we need to show up at the precinct 4 hours before kickoff? And if we *do* have to show up 4 hours early, why the hell are we forced to sit in a cell for two hours after the game ends? Ivica Todorić can just rent us a helicopter; it’s not like we won't make it to the stadium on time.🙄

So, my suggestion: if they’re going to seize our passports 2 or 3 days before the game anyway, there’s absolutely no reason to make us report to the police station at all.

Truth be told, 👋 I’ve got a handful of files floating around named things like "narcissist_me" and other variations on the 😬
theme.

George Chavez8 said:It’s pretty obvious this conversation is catching everyone's eye, judging by how many people are jumping in on this thread. 😬

Man, you've got some serious charisma—stay bold out there until we cross paths again on another board. Take it easy! 😬

Actually, looking at the view count, it's clear plenty of other users are lurking too (539 views). 😁
Best of luck to you. 👍

I don't touch signatures. If they're driving me crazy, I'll just fix them myself. Sometimes, if I'm in a rush, I'll let it slide, knowing they'll eventually get updated anyway.

As for posts? Yeah, if I think they're inappropriate, I'll step in. 🙂

Yeah, it’s just like George Chavez8 said... we’re pretty much on our own here😁...but hey, there's a silver lining. At least we've still got our hair😳

But look, Psychology already has a moderator—that’s Cocaine... and honestly, they’re doing a solid job, so there’s really no reason to kick them out. Sorry, man...

I also spend my time dreaming about having fifteen minutes of authority over the Psychology board... but hey, 😢 until then, I guess I’m just a spammer.

Why am I blocked from posting in the banned users section? (well, aside from the obvious reason 🙄) I really wanted to quote one of the moderators and ask her something... 🥳

EX BLACK & WHITE, EX C&B, EX ruggedstag7

Peace be upon you, and greetings to Kenneth Peterson5.
I wasn't planning on weighing in, but since I’ve been branded a terrorist, I don't really have a choice. That is a heavy accusation to throw around, and frankly, it says much more about the character of the person making it than it does about me. I took a quick look through the US Criminal Code, and what I found are several sections that the moderator rowdyhawk10 has directly violated. There is certainly enough ground here to file a lawsuit against Mr. E.M., aka rowdyhawk10.
Since you decided to publicly label me a terrorist tonight, I’ll be deciding over the next few days how to proceed with legally sanctioned measures against you and those who enabled you to publicly insult and slander me.

Now, let’s address the insults and falsehoods you’re spreading about me here.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
I, for one, am also not writing this for you; I'm doing it to defend my honor and especially for the AMAZING—truly AMAZING—members like boldgull19, Kenneth Peterson5, Scott Nguyen2, Tyler Scott3, Kate Phillips40, Ashik, Amanda Wood3, and others.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Alright, let's see what's actually happening here.
Damir claims that according to Sharia, someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam. Whether it was Damir or someone else before him doesn't matter. That is his claim. Just to be clear, that isn't my claim; it's Damir's.
http://reddit.com/r/discussion/post/33104&page=3
I DO NOT KNOW what the penalty for leaving Islam is under Sharia, and I'm not claiming to. If I did know, I would be stating it openly, just as I have before.

In that post, I simply asked a question and sought an answer as to whether Damir was thanking God that His Sharia is no longer enforced in America.

Here is the answer:
"And those who do not judge by what God has revealed are truly disbelievers."
(Al-Ma'idah, 44)

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
You fabricated that bolded part, and it actually looks like this:
"Ever since secularism arrived in the US, that Sharia provision—thank God—is no longer applied."

That’s when I decided to ask my question.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
You’re indirectly validating this absolute nonsense (forgive me, Lord):
"And those who do not judge by what God has revealed are the true disbelievers."
Al-Ma'idah, 44

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
You're the only blind one here!
boldgull19, Scott Nguyen2, Kenneth Peterson5, and anyone else reading this with a clear head—look, I’m not advocating for any of this, nor am I claiming to believe anything you're trying so hard to force down my throat.
This whole "vision" you're talking about is nothing more than your own desperate attempt to get rid of me and pure, unadulterated hatred.
We’re all seeing the exact same thing, yet you're out here seeing something completely different. So, who's really the blind one here?

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Am I indirectly advocating for this?
Why beat around the bush when I can just be direct?
Are you seriously trying to intimidate me with your bans and warnings? Don't make me laugh. If those strikes weren't just virtual, I’d show you exactly what I’d do with them.
If I wanted to let you know that under Sharia law, leaving Islam carries the death penalty, I’d write it right here in the biggest font possible.
To anyone who’s been following my posts—and let's be real, you probably read every single word—you can see I don't sugarcoat anything. I tell it exactly like it is.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
You don't welcome anyone here who doesn't think exactly like you do. That seems to be the only principle you actually live by.
What kind of violence are you even talking about? You’re the one who banned me three times, plus Salaf, Koby countless times, that housewife... I could go on forever. None of those people were coming to you for your opinion anyway.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
And you think you're the moral compass here?
Let me lay out exactly how you handled my situation, you liar and hypocrite.
First off, you banned me unfairly under the username Black & White. At the insistence of a female user, you PROMISED me—and a promise is a serious thing in Islam—that I would use an alt account and that we wouldn't mess with each other. I agreed just to make things clear for her.
Then you banned me because of Damir. Look, I held up my end of the deal and didn't touch you. You failed your end of the deal and lied. So, I'm writing this for the sake of the other users, because quite frankly, you simply CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
On top of that, during this boycott, you publicly called for me to grab an alt and come back.
You even PROMISED AGAIN via private message that you wouldn't mess with me (you know who I am).
Here is how you play it (it's all right there on the first page of this appeal):
"And that fourth guy (ruggedstag7, aka Black & White)—he's finished his time on this forum, at least as far as I'm concerned, and it's entirely up to him if he decides to write here again."
Only to then turn around and contradict yourself by asking me to break the forum rules and use an alt:
"Ruggedstag7 can try using some luckier username... but following my previous recommendations."

Does anyone actually believe your promises?
Your calls for us to return are transparent. You've lost control of the Religion section. We see people posting there now using names like "Sheep's Dick" (to put it mildly) or straight-up cursing God, and you, as a Muslim, just sit there and take it.

Hello, fellow believer!!!!
You will be questioned on Judgment Day about why you didn't stop this. Were you more afraid of the users or of God?

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
The rules that YOU are the first one to break? Everything is listed right here:
http://reddit.com/showthread.php?t=395244

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
We know exactly who we're dealing with. It's just that you can't face the fact that we've seen through all your little games, and that's what you're actually sorry about.
How can you have no shame treating Tyler Scott3 this way, given they have a mountain of posts, or Scott Nguyen2 who has 3,500? If you printed just their posts, it would fill volumes upon volumes of books. These are two people far more qualified to be moderators on this forum than you are.
Aren't you ashamed, boldgull19 or Kenneth Peterson5?
Do you have any shame?
If you don't have a plan, then just do whatever you want.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello

The US Criminal Code and how you’re violating it:

Being slandered as a terrorist:
Article 200.
Anyone who makes or spreads false statements about another person that could damage their reputation or standing will be subject to a fine of up to fifty percent of their daily income or imprisonment for up to six months.
Anyone who spreads or communicates false information about another person—specifically something that could damage their reputation or standing—through print, radio, television, before a group of people, at a public gathering, or any other method that makes the slander accessible to a wider audience, shall be punished by a fine or by imprisonment for up to one year.

Being insulted and called a terrorist.
Article 199.
Anyone who insults another person will face a fine of up to one hundred days' worth of income or a jail sentence of up to three months.
(2) Anyone who insults someone else through print, radio, television, in front of a crowd, at a public gathering, or by any other means that makes the insult accessible to a larger audience will face a fine of up to fifty daily wages or a prison sentence of up to six months under U.S. law.

Article 107.
Anyone who restricts or limits freedom of speech, public expression, the establishment of commercial companies, funds, or public announcement institutions, or interferes with the freedom of the press and other media outlets, shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.

Article 110.
Anyone who obstructs or restricts the freedom of religious practice, the public expression of faith, or any other personal belief will be subject to a fine or up to one year in prison.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Yeah, check out Article 110.

rowdyhawk10 said:Scott Nguyen2,
I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't feel compelled to, but you are clearly trying to mislead the users here. Unfortunately, you're falling back into that old pattern—the one a veteran user once described with such precision regarding (you know exactly who we're talking about). I had hoped you'd moved past this, and it seems my recent attempt to explain the error to you via private message was in vain. Don't say I didn't try to reach out.

It’s telling: right when Dervish announced his return—you really should have focused your energy on de-escalating the conflict between him and ruggedwolf. You can see exactly what kind of situation that is and where it's heading. Yet, you choose to stay "wise" and silent on that, while continuing to fuel the agony here. 🙄Just so we're clear, I am writing this for the sake of everyone else, not for you, Scott Nguyen2.

I don't have the energy to address every single one of your theories, but I will point out one particularly glaring one. In your description of the issue involving Damir and CB (ruggedstag7)—for which you are accusing me of moderator bias—you conveniently omitted the actual crux of this post. The reality is that Damir had previously written "Thank God that in the US we aren't ruled by laws where someone's head is cut off for leaving Islam". Consequently, CB responded with "So, you're essentially thanking God that His Sharia was abolished?"—and now you're blaming me for sanctioning such nonsense?! 🙄 Even someone with poor eyesight could see that CB is actually holding Damir responsible because he is allegedly "thanking God for the removal of God's law". By doing so, he is indirectly advocating for the execution of those who leave the faith (since he's blaming Damir for being against such executions, right?). It's a shame Damir doesn't see the logic in your spin. Naturally, we won't tolerate such anti-civilization and violent ideology (which, I suspect, even you don't actually agree with) here, and anyone promoting such views isn't welcome. That is our firm stance. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech on the forum," but rather with the administration's clear commitment to preventing the promotion of anti-civilization values. Otherwise, why would rules exist at all, if not to prevent chaos? If this isn't clear to you or the black-and-white ruggedstag7, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
Any reasonable person can see from this that decapitation (for someone leaving any religion) is considered anti-civilization from the standpoint of all global human rights charters.

Because choosing one's faith is a fundamental personal right. Oh, Scott Nguyen2! 🙄

That's all on that. I won't be responding to anything else because regarding your PREVIOUS post, I already told you that no actual arguments were provided. I am officially bowing out of any further discussion with you on this matter. Firstly, I don't have the time, and I certainly don't feel like writing essays about something I've already explained multiple times—something you well know isn't true (even though you persist): that this is not a place to promote terrorism or anti-civilization ideological norms. For the last time, for both you, ruggedstag7, and anyone else still confused: this is not a place to promote violence, terrorism, or anti-civilization ideological norms. The guidelines must be respected; those who follow them are welcome here. Those who don't, well, goodbye. I'm stepping away now; feel free to continue your boycott and protests.🙄 Hello
In your posts, you claim, "I'm somewhat Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist too." You even call the Bible a "wonderful book" alongside the Quran.
What are you actually about?
Your understanding of Islam and your knowledge of the faith are nothing but a total mess (just like you described that same Bible you praise in one of your other posts).
Keep your delusions to yourself. It’s exactly this kind of misguided thinking that led to six innocent Americans being terrorized at Guantanamo Bay for seven years.
I’m putting out an open challenge to you: a 1-on-1 debate on Islam right here on this Reddit thread. I want to knock your perception of Islam down like a house of cards and expose your two-faced hypocrisy toward us REAL Muslims.
Feel free to bring Damir along, since most of us feel nauseous just reading your version of "Islamic" explanations on this forum.

Peace to everyone except you, Mr. E.M., also known as rowdyhawk10...
Here is a snippet of your supposed "sincerity":
. What did you want to be when you grew up... and what did you actually become (career-wise)?
I'm a musician. But I wanted to be the Admin.
http://tolerancija.org/index.php?topic=2836.0

haha 🤣...no matter how you look at it, there's no getting back up...we're beyond help at this point 😳

😬

Alright, I just registered. Now I’m stuck waiting for the activation link, so I was wondering if anyone who's already in could just post the news for me here.

Is torcida.org locked down or what??

George Chavez8 said:Lately, I feel like my spine is starting to curve...😕 😬

...man, you're just getting started. 😁 Mine is already totally warped. 😬

torcida org.

If anyone here actually registered on their site, could you please drop a screenshot of the news

So, I just dropped the news over on the Demon and Tornado forums... now I’m just sitting here waiting to see if anyone from the Red Sox or Yankees fan clubs reaches out, and then I'll move on to the next ones.

Panathinaikos vs Atletico ...2
Roma vs Arsenal...2
Barcelona vs Lyon...1
Liverpool FC vs Inter Milan...2
Juventus vs Chelsea FC...1
Porto vs Real Madrid...1
Bayern Munich vs Villarreal CF...1
Manchester United vs Sporting CP...1

______________________

Atletico Madrid vs Bayern Munich ... 1
Arsenal FC vs Manchester United ... 2
Inter Milan vs Porto ... 1
Juventus vs FC Barcelona ... 2

_______________________

Atletico Madrid vs Inter Milan ...2
Manchester United vs FC Barcelona ... 1

_______________________

Inter Milan vs Manchester United ...1

☕

lol whose rebellion are we even talking about?
is there actually some kind of uprising going on?

Fight through the lens of socialist self-management, viewed through the prism of an individual's programmed consciousness shaped by capitalist constructs. It’s not even a stretch to say that certain free masonry associations are actively involved in moderating—or outright attempting to dismantle—the federation, regardless of whether they're looking toward European Union integration or just sticking to their aerobics classes, all in alignment with the collective mindset.

George Chavez8 said:I totally get you... honestly, it's hard when all people see is that charismatic, bombshell exterior. 😬

...yeah, that's way too much pressure to carry. 😬