Posts by Nathan Richardson2

You’re clearly failing to distinguish between the Furies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erinyes), those goddesses of vengeance, and Eris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris), the goddess of chaos—the very entity you're trying to twist the definition of by claiming it originated from her.

That’s all there is to it.

By profession, I’m a programmer, so I find it much easier to express myself through numbers and graphs. Here is a graph illustrating exactly what happens when Ostric oversteps the bounds of a discussion:

http://i65.tinypic.com/2m7yq1y.png


The graph tracks his message count on every individual page within the Jasenovac topic. He didn't just dominate the thread through sheer volume; that's to say nothing of the insults and the deletions.

lonetrucker4 said:That’s the conclusion I’ve drawn from everything you’ve written. You started this thread by repeating what Stjepan razum wrote two years ago, and he explicitly denies that the Jasenovac camp group was a death camp. Perhaps you’ve managed to convince yourself that isn't the case.

Your conclusions are wrong, and your accusations are false.
I mentioned Razum exactly once, in the opening post of this thread. He isn't central to the rest of this discussion. If you have an issue with Razum, take it up with him. Don't attribute his words to me.

The list caught my attention when it was published (2015, Stjepan razum, Tomislav Vukovic) that there were as many as 14,000 duplicate entries (out of roughly 80,000 total victims listed). It seemed unbelievable to me that such sloppiness could exist on such a vital record, given we aren't talking about a private collection, but an official museum, an official victim list, and finally, an official casualty count.

I have never debated the nature of the camp, let alone denied it. In fact, I made it quite clear that the subject here isn't the camp itself, but the registry. Of course, you're well aware of that, but your modus operandi is to make false accusations. The persistence you show in doing so is remarkable.

Once again, we find ourselves circling back to your self-proclaimed status as an "experienced eristic"—a follower of the Greek goddess of chaos, I suppose:

Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.

You generate far too much drama, dodge questions, steer the conversation away from its actual content toward personal bickering, and fabricate things that don't exist (like labeling me as part of some "fascist group," or inventing imaginary collaborators). Your habit of making false accusations of fascism is fascinating; I haven't encountered anything quite like it.

I have no idea why the Supermoderator and the site administration ignore your behavior. Honestly, people, participating in Ostric's dramas is exhausting. I am no eristic, much like the vast majority of "fascists" whom Ostric chooses to fight against.

Basically, during the day, Ostric maintains this specific attitude:

I’ve already mentioned this, but you and your associates—all of you trying so hard to discredit the list—actually deserve credit because you’ve essentially proven its high level of reliability. Personally, if anyone were to ask me, I’d say it isn't surprising that compared to the 83,000 on the list, the actual victim count fluctuates by about 10,000. Your efforts have merely demonstrated that the number of potentially fraudulent cases is actually smaller. A productive result, really!

Then, in the dead of night, he goes and locks the thread.

If I were to ignore his persistent paranoia—which has been debunked X times already—regarding my supposed "associates," I could honestly just say thanks for the compliments and ask the Supermoderator to reopen the thread so I can further demonstrate just how reliable that list truly is.

http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1017199&page=6

lonetrucker4 said:...
This subject used to be largely ignored, but there has been significant research in recent years, leading to the publication of several important new documents. There is currently a scientific project underway, which is set to be presented next week during Kliofest.

Look, you haven't actually published a single official document here. All you did was scrape some messages from 2017 and tack on a single disclaimer at the end. If anyone else had tried to start a thread like this, they would have been banned instantly. And honestly, because the way you opened this topic was so poorly handled, it generated exactly zero interest. I told you before, Vac: an actual report from that Kliofest event would have made for a solid opening post. This? This is just lazy.

lonetrucker4 said:You didn't get flagged for that. I wasn't "ignoring" anything—I simply took a moment to think it through and then made my decision.

So, you’ve decided to restore the posts that actually belong to the discussion, while moving everything else—the stuff that doesn't fit or would be better suited elsewhere—to different sections. And then, to top it all off, you decide to lock the whole thread because the OP’s "singular obsession" is supposedly "denying the victims of a fascist regime by throwing out falsehoods." Typical.

Everything about this is the exact opposite of how an unbiased moderator would handle things.

lonetrucker4 said:There are exactly ten instances in the list where an impossible birth year is provided. These are clearly just typos.

You only know that specific data because I was the one who posted it in a locked thread. It’s the direct result of my own hard work and dedication. That entire discussion was meticulously prepared, thoroughly researched, and laid out clearly in the opening posts.

Everything you've laid out here is the complete opposite of what you put forward in your own thread regarding the fate of Roma in WWII.

lonetrucker4 said:The denial of those atrocities from the era of the Ustaše deeply disturbs me and feels like a personal insult, primarily because I am an American. Like any other nation, we have a responsibility to condemn and reject the dark chapters of our own history—the things our own countrymen were responsible for.

It seems you take offense at anyone denying wartime atrocities, while I find myself repulsed by all of them. Any person with even a shred of morality or common sense condemns mass killings without hesitation. The real issue here, however, is that you constantly resort to false accusations against your interlocutors. You label people as deniers, or claim they’re pro-, or filo-, or crypto-whatever, or accuse them of pushing propaganda. Lately, you've even started using that trendy new buzzword: accusing everyone of hate speech.

When you aren't emotionally triggered by topics—those ones where you claim things are "deeply disturbing and offensive"—you don't act this way. That tells me you’re actually capable of being rational, and that you know perfectly well your interlocutors aren't some radical extremists, but rather people you choose to treat like this:
1) insult, dehumanize, and belittle
2) set the stage for a ban the second you run out of actual arguments (since you've already issued the warning, the ban follows!)

The truth is, you simply can't serve as a moderator for the history section because you're biased and prone to making baseless accusations against anyone with different ideological views. And in your eyes, those "ideological opponents" include everyone from radicals to democrats, whom you conveniently lump all together under one label.

Everything we’re seeing here is just classic behavior from the typical Reddit users and the moderator Ostric. I’ve warned people before that he regularly insults his interlocutors; his posts are just a repetitive barrage of labels like pro-/filo-/crypto-/fascist/Nazi, which he reserves exclusively for anyone who doesn't share his exact worldview. Whenever a post doesn't align with his preferences, the author immediately resorts to some kind of "Proustian propaganda."

It would be quite refreshing if the Supermoderator had a serious word with Ostric about his obsession with labeling dissenters. He needs to stop deleting on-topic, well-reasoned messages simply because they don't fit his ideological mold. Most importantly, he needs to quit locking threads without any legitimate justification.

The topics that Ostric considers ideologically vital—like WWII and the communist era—always end up playing out the same way. His ego essentially overshadows the entire discussion. Take the Jasenovac topic, for instance; ever since he took over as moderator, roughly every second post belongs to him. He acts like the ultimate "expert" and authority, while anyone who refuses to bow to that arrogance and attempts to engage with actual arguments is branded as pro-/filo-/crypto-...
Actually, looking at his recent content, he’s even started rambling about Flat Earth theory and accusing me of being part of some "well-connected network of right-wing revisionists." It’s hardly surprising coming from our friend Zoran; he’s been accusing me of being part of some "fascist group" for ages. Still, it would be beneficial for the History sub-forum if someone actually stepped in to make him act like a real moderator.

Good day,

The last time Uncle Strile put it like this:

This should work fine for the discussion on the history PDF. Just take it to him directly within that specific thread and let him handle the responses. If lonetrucker4 went overboard with the tags and bans in response to your inquiry, I can assure you that will definitely be rectified.

So, here we go again. In this latest iteration of the thread, I feel compelled to vent a little about how the moderator, Zoran Ostric, has been conducting himself lately.

First off, someone decided to "resurrect" my thread regarding the Jasenovac list on the official government website.

The way it was handled, they basically just moved about ten messages that weren't even off-topic into a new thread.

The conversation on Reddit regarding the historical record of the Jasenovac camp group remains predictably messy. People tend to get incredibly emotional about the Jasenovac topic, often ignoring the actual nuances of how things unfolded during WWII. It’s always the same pattern: someone brings up a specific point about the fate of Roma in NDH, and suddenly the entire thread descends into a shouting match. Looking at the discussions involving lonetrucker4 and driftingorca16, you can see how quickly the dialogue fractures when people stop looking at the documented facts and start relying on sentiment. There’s this persistent tendency to oversimplify the role of the Reich and its influence on local operations. Even when discussing figures like Ante Ciliga or the broader political shifts under Franjo Tuđman, the discourse lacks the measured approach required to actually understand the complexity of that era. It’s also worth noting how certain individuals, like Mladen Ivezić or even the perspectives offered by Slavko Goldstein, are used as conversational shields rather than being engaged with critically. Everyone wants to claim a piece of the historical narrative, yet very few seem interested in the actual academic rigor. It’s less about finding the truth and more about winning an argument on a message board. If we want any semblance of a productive debate regarding the Holocaust or the specific horrors of the concentration camp system, we have to move past these repetitive, circular arguments.

And all that effort just to drop an announcement about a single lecture. As if we don't already have a dedicated thread specifically for announcements.

When I asked for those moved messages to be restored—and suggested that maybe, just maybe, putting even a modicum of effort into starting a new thread with an actual intro wouldn't kill anyone—his response was a masterclass in inefficiency. He went through the whole routine: first the stonewalling, then the blatant ignoring, and finally, a flat-out refusal over in the Dear Moderator thread.

Then the thread starts getting hit with a few posts that aren't strictly off-topic, but they don't exactly fit the general Jasenovac topic either. When I requested that these messages be moved from the Jasenovac list to the general Jasenovac topic, lonetrucker4 responded like this:

I'm locking this thread. After the latest outbursts from the OP, it’s become painfully obvious that their only real goal here is to deny the victims. Besides, there’s nothing left to say. There is zero new information being brought to the table.

Can anyone besides Ostric honestly claim I’m "exclusively trying to deny the victims" based on anything I've actually managed to establish on this site?

On the Jasenovac topic, he went ahead and added this as well:

The "Noted victims list..." thread is being locked. It’s become painfully obvious that the OP and a certain clique of forum users have turned this into an outright smear campaign. Their only goal here is to deny the victims of the fascist regime by peddling fake theories, blowing things out of proportion, and leaning heavily on bias and blatant falsehoods.

Calling something "exaggerated" or "biased" might pass for a personal opinion, but throwing around accusations of "false premises" or "fabrications" is a much heavier charge—one that this person hasn't even bothered to back up with a single actual argument.

**********
In conclusion, I’ll be requesting that the Supermoderator reopen this thread.

I'm envisioning this thread as a somewhat broader discussion regarding lonetrucker4, rather than just a petty back-and-forth. This is especially true given that lonetrucker4 describes himself as an "experienced eristic" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic), which is a level of verbal sparring I have zero interest in engaging in.

Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.

However, there are certain points I need to clarify.

On the contrary, one can discuss various topics quite civilly, and indeed, they are discussed.

That holds true for any topic where lonetrucker4 isn't driven by ideological interests. Regarding those subjects, I have no complaints about the moderator or his debating style. The problem arises when we touch on WWII or the forty-five years of communism. On those specific threads, lonetrucker4 positions himself as the self-appointed, infallible authority, and he doesn't hesitate to wield moderator sanctions as his ultimate "arguments" in a debate. Under these circumstances, nobody besides lonetrucker4 actually has the opportunity to express an opinion.

The Jasenovac thread serves as a perfect case study. From the moment lonetrucker4 took over moderator duties (first appearing in blue at post #1000) up to the most recent entry (#1050), out of 50 posts, 40%—or 20 posts—belong to lonetrucker4. Of those, he wrote 12 as a participant and 8 as a moderator.

In those 8 moderator posts, lonetrucker4 persistently brings up "fascists" and/or "fascist propaganda." When he writes this as a regular user, it’s just his opinion; someone might find it distasteful, someone else might agree, but there’s no doubt who is behind the words. However, when Moderator lonetrucker4 hands out strikes and bans based on labeling dissenters as "fascists," that labeling takes on a much more serious tone. Does that represent the forum administration, or is it merely the outburst of a single individual?

Take, for example, his claim in the post above:

Actually, quite lenient; 25 points for the first offense, and even then, I'm only issuing yellow cards.

Which I am refuting in the Jasenovac thread in post #1021 ( ):

So far, three people have earned 100 penalty points and a three-day ban for denying the crimes of the fascist regime.

I was one of those three, and "denying the crimes of the fascist regime" refers to this:
You can see that I wasn't just "denying crimes," but also "trolling particularly hard" and spreading "fascist propaganda," despite never actually mentioning fascists or crimes. After my appeal, the supermoderator removed the strike and promised to speak with lonetrucker4, yet I see no change in the moderator's behavior. He continues to politely and "argumentatively" label "denial," "trolling," and/or "fascist propaganda" anyone who does not ideologically align with him. In the Jasenovac thread, literally everyone who disagreed with lonetrucker4's view was sanctioned and singled out, individually or collectively, with such accusations:

A certain group keeps pushing this pro-fascist propaganda.

It is honestly difficult to overstate how exhausting this kind of moderator behavior has become.
Forum.hr needs to make a definitive call: does the site actually support Ostric labeling users as "Ustashe," stifling free speech on WWII topics, and banning decent, reasoned debates regarding recent history? Is the solution really what Christian Torres3 suggests—just "heading over to some revisionist site"? Or will someone finally step in and replace Ostric, who clearly lacks both the tolerance for differing opinions and the basic competence required for moderation?

Whatever they decide regarding Ostric, it’ll only affect the dozen or so people actually engaging in discussions over on the History board. A much more pressing issue is the state of the Military History section. The thread about aircraft procurement is incredibly popular—it's basically the primary source for most news articles on the subject—yet it’s completely buried under off-topic spam and petty bickering between users.

Hey everyone,

Reddit’s History section is structured around a few core topic clusters and two specific subreddits: "Military History and Technology" and "The American Civil War." This is my contribution toward refining and elevating both the general "History" hub and the "Military History and Technology" section.

Military History and Technology
The moderation team here consists of Pizvo, Scotsman, Zoran Oštrić, and Uncle Strile. For the longest time, the Military History and Technology section was either poorly managed or completely ignored—until Pizvo stepped in. He actually did some heavy lifting, cleaning up the constant stream of spam, off-topic nonsense, and the endless personal bickering that used to plague the boards. Unfortunately, Pizvo vanished without a trace almost as quickly as he arrived. Now, Military History and Technology has regressed to its usual state of chaos, where actual relevant content accounts for maybe 20% of the discussions at best. This is especially glaring in the most popular thread regarding the procurement of new fighter jets.
Moderation has basically devolved into this incredibly rare and wildly insufficient level of engagement from Uncle Strile. You can tell just how seldom Strile actually shows up to participate based on messages like these directed at him:

This discussion has hit rock bottom.

The last ten top-tier debaters on this platform.

I could probably show up to the club weighing 220 pounds, packed tight in buckets of manure.

From those Simmental cows over at the dairy farm...

Uncle Strile, give me a break... honestly, you and your moderation style are something else.

Maybe you should just switch over to growing something else.

A worm—something that requires absolutely zero mental effort.

Are you just sitting there handing out penalty points and bans?

Say it, Kuja.

And this is why the discussions on the aircraft procurement threads turn into absolute circus acts:

A textbook demonstration of the liberal mindset.
Are you some kind of leftist?

Classic jerk move.
So, did you go ahead and tattoo that flag on your Jeep too?

Did your liberal mindset just completely fall off a cliff?
If you're actually interested in knowing whether she has tattoos, just let me know and I'll tell you.

I have a suggestion regarding the "Military History and Technology" subreddit. It’s time we look into appointing a new moderator—someone perhaps a bit more hands-on than Pizvo. To be clear, we don't need a heavy-handed regime focused on handing out bans or playing digital police. That isn't the issue here. What we actually need is someone to consistently prune the petty personal bickering and the off-topic nonsense that litters the threads. This sub is popular, highly active, and genuinely fascinating. It just lacks a basic filter to keep the vulgarity and the spam at bay.

History.
Unlike Reddit, the History section sees a pretty thin crowd. If I had to put a number on it, you’ve got maybe ten regulars and another ten folks who just pop in every once in a while. Up until recently, the sub actually ran quite smoothly. You’d see the occasional report for bad behavior—usually involving someone citing Facebook posts as actual evidence, excessive swearing, or those tired arguments along the lines of "we didn't kill enough of you during WWII"—but Uncle Strile handled it all without breaking a sweat. Generally speaking, I haven't seen any major issues here.

Then two things shifted. There was this sudden surge of interest in the NBA-style alternative history discussions, and Zoran Ostric was promoted to moderator here on Reddit. Regarding those alternate history threads, the decision had already been made not to spin them off into their own dedicated sub-forum. In my view, under these circumstances, the moderators—Ostric and Strile—really ought to organize these topics into one, or ideally several, consolidated threads within the History section. The specific naming of these threads isn't my concern; I simply want to nudge the moderation team to take some kind of action. Right now, they aren't doing much of anything, and frankly, I fail to see how a debate about the Beatles in the Third Reich qualifies as actual History.
The second, and significantly larger, issue facing the History subforum is its "unique" moderation style, spearheaded by Zoran Ostric. The ease with which Ostric labels anyone with a differing opinion as a "fascist" or "Nazi" is truly remarkable. He actively participates in discussions, often citing books published during the communist era; however, if anyone dares to question the reliability or validity of sources from a non-democratic regime, he simply ends the "debate" with threats. Here are just a few quotes from the last two pages of the thread regarding the American Civil War:

Quote:>

Any further repetition of pro-fascist (pro-Pétain, pro-Nazi, etc.) propaganda will be punished with warnings leading to bans.

As I stated previously, stricter warnings and bans will follow for those denying historical facts.

In repeated cases, heavier penalties will follow, including the possibility of a permanent ban from the "History and Historical Topics" PDF section.

This has all been said many times already. A group of people continues to spread pro-fascist propaganda.

As I have previously announced, I will intervene as a moderator to punish those engaging in the aforementioned pro-fascist propaganda.

There are plenty of other instances where he brands users as fascists—he personally labeled me as nothing less than a group of fascists, but this should be enough to get the picture.

Ostric's most bizarre criterion for "denying historical character" works like this: Ostric posts messages loaded with citations from "communist" (meaning, published under the old regime) literature, and at the very first sign of a rebuttal that doesn't accept his logic, he issues a threat: everything has been stated (referring to his own posts and selective quotes), and those who "deny character" or engage in "fascist propaganda" will face severe sanctions.

Under such conditions, actual discussion becomes impossible. While the debate remains civil and well-argued (within the context of a forum for laypeople, i.e., the general public), I fail to see how Ostric’s introduction of verbal crimes improves the quality of the forum.

In my view, granting Zoran Ostric moderating authority was a mistake. By insulting and issuing warnings to the last dozen active participants on the History subforum, this ceases to be a forum and begins to resemble Ostric's personal blog.

My apologies if this is long-winded, but these are my observations and suggestions as I see them. I also apologize for the off-topic rambling in the thread about warnings, explaining why I received a deserved yellow card.

Best regards,
Nathan Richardson2

P.S.
I attempted to address this in the "Dear Moderators" thread on the History subforum, but either Uncle Strile is absent or simply ignoring the messages there, while Ostric... Ostric is busy having a chat about a different leader over there.

For the record, this is the message lonetrucker4 flagged as "especially heavy trolling (Proustian propaganda)" and punished with a three-day suspension and a month-long red strike.

-----------------------

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

lonetrucker4 said:Dear Nathan Richardson2,

You have received an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: especially heavy trolling (Proustian propaganda)
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 100 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=67782425
original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote lonetrucker4 said:The exaggerated figures regarding victims from the Jasenovac camp group were clearly debunked in the late 1980s and early 1990s, thanks to the work of Ljubo Boban, Mirko Peršen, Bogoljub Kočović, Vladimir Žerjavić, Franjo Harmon, Slavko Goldstein, and others. That was over 25 years ago. There is no need for further arguing about the ramblings of mythomaniacs and demagogues in this PDF. You can take that to the "close to politics" PDF. Stop it here, because this is just trolling.

What do you mean "debunked"? The Mexicans didn't even blink at this "debunking."
Communist propaganda needed the myth of 700,000 victims for its own reasons, and the Mexicans continue to push it "tutta forza" to this day. Kocovic's work (and the later plagiarism by Zerjavic that dad promotes to inflate his own irrelevant role) represents merely the first voice that disagreed with the noise made by both the communist and later the great Mexican liars and propagandists. That myth is nowhere near being debunked.
And no, the quote you are citing isn't trolling.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

lonetrucker4 said:You've repeated these propaganda clichés multiple times already. Cut it out; it's nothing but trolling.

This is a perfect example of why you aren't fit for a moderator position. Your worldview is so heavily skewed to the left that you label the legitimate expression of an opinion as trolling. You are simply too deeply entrenched in these discussions to be impartial. Add to that the fact that you're a political extremist, and poor moderation is practically guaranteed.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

lonetrucker4 said:Yeah. I'm talking about revisionists in that negative sense—how people use the term when they try to deny established facts and scientific consensus just to serve some ideological or political agenda. Just stop it.

"Revisionism" is actually at the very core of historical study. The entire field of history is one continuous process of revision. It’s only partisan schools of historiography that view revisionism in "that bad sense."
If you think you can discipline ideological dissidents with moderator hammers and sweet little messages telling them to "stop it" every time someone expresses an opinion you don't like, then this subforum is going to turn into a wasteland pretty fast.

All the best,
Reddit

My apologies for the subtext in my previous response to Daniel Ward87. My goal was simply to be crystal clear regarding this black-and-white worldview and the imposition of verbal offenses. However, my intention in starting this thread wasn't to lobby for shorter bans, but rather to voice a grievance concerning an inadequate moderator.

lonetrucker4 is the most active debater in the History subforum, frequently finding himself in heated verbal clashes with users who hold differing ideological views. If his only issue were insulting every dissenter by calling them a fascist, Nazi, or propagandist, there wouldn't be much of a problem. Anyone over the age of fifteen can easily tune out that kind of childishness. But because he pairs those insults with the misuse of moderator tools as actual debate arguments—claiming things like "any further repetition of propaganda will result in a ban"—he proves he lacks the maturity required for moderation. (See my example of what constitutes "propaganda" at the end of this post).

Ostric is a confrontational and intolerant individual; he seems to view anyone critical of communist literature through a highly biased lens. He has no qualms about insulting his interlocutors and acts as if history froze in 1990 when the Party issued its final cultural and political directives. While this might be a legitimate, albeit extremist, stance to hold in a discussion, once such a distorted worldview is forced upon others using moderator powers, dialogue dies and is replaced by verbal offenses.

In short, the History subforum would be better off unmoderated, preserving our freedom of speech, than being moderated in this twisted Ostric way. And yes, a person can certainly be immature while simultaneously being "old, yet foolish."

Hi there,

I originally started this thread in the "ban corner" (http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1051787), but since I’ve been stripped of my posting privileges over there, I’m continuing here. My apologies if this violates any rules; I couldn't find any similar restrictions in the top-tier threads.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:One segment that could be categorized as "fascist propaganda" is the portion where absolutely everything produced by the communist system is denied—effectively labeling all its records as fake or invalid.

Are you referring to my specific posts, or the entire debate that kicked off with that user's comment? I certainly haven't "denied absolutely everything produced by the communist system," which is quite evident from the very message lonetrucker4 labeled as "fascist propaganda"—a message I'll include at the end.

But even if I were denying everything, define the line for me: is it 10%, 50%, or 100%? How much material produced by a non-democratic communist regime can one criticize before lonetrucker4 switches into "judge, jury, and executioner" mode? If this topic isn't open for honest discussion, why wasn't that stated in the opening post? Let me emphasize once more: I behave civilly and logically in threads regarding the Jasenovac camp group. Unlike lonetrucker4, I don't go around calling people Nazis, Stalinists, fascists, "pro-this," or "propaganda-that." I stay on topic.

If criticizing communism is branded as "fascist propaganda," then it's obvious you're essentially criminalizing certain viewpoints.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:It makes it seem as though the partisans were killing wildly while the fascists just sat around waiting for the war to end only to die as innocent victims. Questioning certain facts is perfectly valid, but claiming that everything produced by one side is false constitutes propaganda, because that implies the opposing side—the fascist side—was entirely correct.

It is fascinating how this thread, which is usually rational, sends people on an emotional rollercoaster leading them to hysterical conclusions. That quote was your own words, and nobody else's. Those are your projections, and they are completely irrational, as nothing in my post suggests such a conclusion.

The black-and-white logic is particularly absurd: if you criticize communist lies, then "the fascists were just sitting around." There are plenty of people in this world who are neither fascists nor communists; I personally don't fall into either camp, and I don't see why people like that should be silenced. A bipolar worldview (it's either fascists vs. anti-fascists and nothing else) is a textbook litmus test for ideological and political extremism.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:That part of the argument is contentious. Zoran emphasized that the mythologized figures were debunked long ago, and that what the Mexicans are provoking is a matter of politics, not history.

If Zoran believes in unicorns, am I obligated to believe in them too? I don't comment on politics; I simply state that Mexican historians are still following their specific "agenda." No figures have been "debunked" by the release of Zerjavic's book. Have you actually read it? The man can't even sum up his own numbers correctly. Every single table needs to be manually verified on a calculator. Why doesn't he provide primary sources? What are his primary sources? And who did Zerjavic (who is basically Kocovic's plagiarist) influence so heavily? Aside from lonetrucker4, I mean. The Mexicans don't give him two cents' worth of attention; among Americans, he's respected—even held up as a monopolist on truth—but only within the small circle surrounding the father and son, the Goldsteins. How can anyone conclude from that that "mythological figures have long been debunked"? And why is it forbidden to have a polite debate on the subject?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:So, for any future discussions, I suggest you watch how you debate, because there's no way that...

Watch what exactly? I don't post often, I stay polite, and I stick to the topic. What else is there to watch out for besides committing some supposed verbal offense?
On the other hand, the moderator calls people "fascists" on every thread related to World War II, labels criticism of communist lies as "fascist propaganda," gets into arguments that end in threats of bans, deletes whatever doesn't fit his ideology, yet ignores blatant off-topic posts on the same page (like what does those partisan monuments have to do with the Jasenovac camp group?). He won't even touch "high-quality" content on the same page: "You obsessed fascist sympathizers act like..."

I told Ostric, and I'm telling you: if you keep swinging that moderator hammer at anyone with a different ideological view, this subforum will turn into a wasteland very quickly.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:Overstated, distorted, and lied in certain parts, yes. But absolutely everything? No. Which parts and to what extent is something we should actually be discussing.

Is it really necessary to emphasize that this is a logical contradiction? It’s practically nonsense. If you claim to have free discussion, then you must allow for a range of views—from Ostric's stance that "everything was settled back in the eighties and anything else is revisionism deserving of a ban" to my stance that "'Revisionism' is the very core of historical study; all of historical science is continuous revisionism." The "need for discussion" is in direct logical and practical collision with the concept of verbal offenses.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/quote

Daniel Ward87 said:Lifting the ban, because the time spent being banned is enough for one post.

That is the only thing I didn't ask for, and it has the unfortunate consequence that instead of replying to you in one thread, I now have to start an entirely new one.