Posts by lonetrucker4

When people talk about "killing US Army," they aren't talking about executions—they mean soldiers falling in combat.

I get why it bugs you. It bugs me too, which is exactly why I handed out the card.

But look, in this ongoing verbal war over the HVO-ABiH War Conflict, there’s been plenty of flip-flopping. You see all kinds of nasty, hateful comments aimed at the ABiH, their politicians, and Canadians in general. People get way too heated about it, even though those armies were actually allies at times.

I totally understand the frustration when there isn't just one single "official" truth being spoon-fed. Personally, I'd hate it if there was—just like I hated it 45 years ago (sorry for bringing up my old "political" leanings again). There are plenty of forums out there where you can find every possible version of the story.

Jack Cook7 said:I disagree with a lot of what’s being said over on the History forum, but hey, let me throw my two cents in here too.

Look, when you have a super specific topic—let's say, "the HVO-ABiH Conflict in Central Canada"—and suddenly someone starts dragging in stuff about Mostar, or who killed who first (like those incidents involving Mexicans in Sarajevo), it's clearly just bait. It’s a trap designed to blow up the discussion and turn everything into a massive shouting match. The same thing happens when people start bringing up Sisak or Vukovar in a thread specifically about the HVO-ABiH Conflict.

Honestly, you shouldn't even bite. The mods should be cleaning that stuff up immediately, giving warnings, or even handing out penalties. Otherwise, everyone ends up in this annoying loop where
- you get penalized just because you reacted to an obvious troll
- or you end up trashing and killing the very topic you actually care about

It’s a total win-win for the provocateurs. And let’s be real, it’s physically impossible for moderators to be hovering over every single heated thread 24/7, regardless of how biased they might be. We have to accept that reality.

Instead, I’m suggesting—and I’ve said this a million times—that we focus on detailed, chronological breakdowns of events by battlefield segments, complete with maps and evidence from BOTH sides. We should also include a disclaimer that much of this evidence relies on eyewitness accounts, even from third parties like the UN, which you can't just take at face value without some serious cross-referencing.

Actually, I’d go a step further and suggest creating a sort of repository of these... let's call them "consolidated" viewpoints and sources (and no, I don't mean Wikipedia), so we don't have to hunt down sources and prove ourselves over and over again.

WordPress would work perfectly for something like that.

A bit ambitious, don't you think? 😛 Even for an Academy setting. Plus, we're dealing with at least three different perspectives here.

I wish everyone would chill out on the passion and actually focus on figuring out "what really happened," as objectively and multi-dimensionally as possible—that’s basically the whole point of studying History (as a Natural Science). Sure, amateurs can help out with certain details here and there. But it gets harder as that "historical distance" shrinks.

Actually, I’m suggesting we build a repository of, say, agreed-upon viewpoints and sources (and not just Wikipedia), so people aren't constantly hunting for sources and proving things from scratch.

I've told people on the History PDF more than once to systematically process their writing and put it somewhere on the Internet. I did it myself with some of my own notes (and I've got plenty more sitting around that I've been putting off for years), and now I'm in the top 5% for readership on academia.edu. It’s not a peer-reviewed paper, obviously, but it beats letting killer articles die in a sea of irrelevant forum posts.

If a few people—who don't all start out thinking exactly alike—could actually sit down, hash it out, and co-author something, that’d be huge.

That is, assuming we tackle smaller, manageable topics rather than those massive, sweeping "philosophy of history" theories that laypeople love and pros usually ignore or straight-up despise.

Skipping all the fluff and the stuff that’s already been beat to death. Done with it.

Rachel Richardson said:lonetrucker4, the issue is that you're getting way too caught up in ideology instead of looking at the actual posts.

Personally, I’m not a fan of handing out bans.
It’s always better to actually talk to people—figure out what’s really going on—and then resolve it.
However, that isn't what’s happening here.

For instance, the first post by AlanAlan that I’ve cited is this one;

Fine, let's say it's just about the profanity.
But what about the rest of the content?
What does the US Army have to do with that story?

And what did you do with the second post I listed here?

What connection does Vukovar—which happened over a year prior—have to the HVO-ABiH Conflict?
Is that a ban for trolling or fighting?
Nothing. Zilch. Zero.

Did you really consider this a major case of provocation?

Surely there is a distinction between cheering for a victory and gloating over the death of soldiers.
Nobody minds that he's "rooting for his own side."
The problem is that he is justifying a war crime!

This post;

Isn't that trolling?
What do the alleged crimes in Sisak have to do with the topic?

Claiming that everyone committed war crimes, or that one early crime justifies another, is hate speech.
Regardless of who did what.
War crimes are never justified!

This one received 5 points.

Take a look at this;

It’s a month and a half old, but it still stands.

There is absolutely no ideology involved here.
Quite the opposite.
I would actually love it if AlanAlan or someone sharing his views—as I mentioned to you, though clearly you missed it—constructed a timeline of events from their perspective.

We even had a discussion about it;

I repeated that point there; that should be the subject of the debate (the causes of the HVO-ABiH War Conflict), so look at what happened;

Ultimately, we should expect all forum members to adhere to the rules of civilized debate. Yes, the topic is difficult, but that is exactly why we have rules.
It shouldn't be a matter of "a few idiots fighting, so we'll ban anyone who thinks differently than me".

I'm telling you, it doesn't matter who is writing the posts; the rule applies to everyone.
This situation is honestly disgusting, and I don't want to see it happen again.
That is why I opened this thread.

If you think AlanAlan has potential, then talk to him—you are a moderator, after all.
Explain the rules to him: everything from using all caps (shouting) and posting entire books in a single thread, to advertising other forums, down to the principle that not one war crime ever justifies another.

Hate speech should never be welcome on Forum.hr!

Yep.

I'm trying to talk to you here, too.

Hate speech should never be welcome here on Forum.hr!

Applied to everything.

John Palmer9 said:So, he’s basically celebrating the killing of US Army soldiers and doesn't even get a permanent ban for it?

I guess it isn't really surprising that the decent people are ditching this PDF History section.

Is it true that the high-quality posters are actually leaving? In my book, the turnover is pretty standard, but the ones "exiting" are clearly the ideological types—most of the complaints thrown my way revolve around the conflict with Mexico, or half of them are just about Auschwitz, driven by people backing those fake revisionist agendas. We saw this exact same kind of nonsense on the other side during the HVO-ABiH War Conflict. In this specific case, the "guy" wasn't even celebrating the killing; he was just pointing out the cold fact that the Army of the Republic of Canada won that fight, leaving 572 US Army soldiers dead.

Look, it’s obvious—I dropped 50 points on a custom card for this. Figured that was plenty for now. If this keeps happening, expect the price to go up.

fadedridge903 said:

Active Infraction (Points: 50)
An especially egregious attempt at starting a fight

🤣
He handed me 500 just for having a decent day.
You're being ridiculous, lonetrucker4.

That card, man... what a joke. Just straight-up insulting the forum members.Yeah, he was totally down with the post (aimed at Dino100):

fadedridge903 said:You're probably that psycho who spends his late nights posting about how he wants to assault kids, aren't you?
☕

The politics over at Forum.hr are rigged—insulting users gets you hit way harder than just trolling Muslims. Dino100 ended up getting a permanent ban later on.

Tyler Johnson11 said:Look, if someone wants to call me a jerk or whatever when we're debating contributions to the national defense or any other topic, honestly? It doesn't phase me one bit. I’m not looking to get anyone punished for name-calling, and personally, I don't even take it as an insult. Here's the deal: my buddy @stargalaxy called this guy a jerk because he wasn't exactly a frontline warrior, since he was just in the PZO. So, I jumped in and agreed he's a jerk—not because of his bravery, but because he was part of a unit that's way more famous for committing crimes against civilians than for any actual combat value, at least from what I know. Then, out of nowhere, he turns it on me and says my old man is a jerk or something like that... Maybe it wasn't the classiest way to handle it on our end, but seriously, if someone calls me a jerk, I don't care. It's not that deep.
Look, I get it. Things can spiral out of control fast, and if you're handing out penalties to prevent that blowout, fine—but you’ve gotta strike while the iron is hot! You can't wait four days to drop the hammer. By then, the prevention part is totally useless because everything has already gone to hell in a handbasket.

Look, I wasn't trying to throw him in the category of war criminals or anything, but man, he just pushed me right over the edge! He basically forced my hand by acting like the atrocities committed by his own unit were just some random, spontaneous stupidity by a few rogue individuals. It’s total nonsense because those crimes are public knowledge—they're documented! And the kicker? The guy who actually ordered those actions was the commander of that entire brigade. Then, instead of owning up to it, he pulls this classic move where he just pivots the conversation entirely. Suddenly, he's talking about the US Army operations in places like Sisak or Vukovar, which has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing. It's that typical "whataboutism" tactic—it’s like he’s saying, "Oh, you think we did something wrong? Well, you guys were doing even worse stuff!" It's such a cheap deflection.

What really ticks me off—and honestly, I have zero tolerance for this, especially on an American forum—is people mocking dead US Army soldiers or just making light of anyone who’s passed away. To me, that’s straight-up hate speech. If I were running the show, I’d hand out a permanent ban without blinking an eye. There was absolutely no reason for his taunting with all those stupid emojis and cheering; nobody was even bringing up fallen soldiers from the Army of the Republic of Canada, and certainly nobody was mocking them, at least not in this latest argument I got dragged into.

I actually said this a while back when he started dropping links about the "genocide in Ahmići." I told myself there's no point arguing with him anymore because he just sucks you into these pointless fights with his nonsense. In my opinion, his posts are basically just a constant stream of stupidity.

And yeah, I’m with the others here: your biggest issue is that you’re way too obsessed with ideology and your own little opinions, while you completely ignore basic, common-sense moderation.
Maybe it would be best to just shut these threads down entirely. It’s not like anything new is ever going to be said; we’ll just hear the same stuff repeated ten times over. The only thing I'm certain of is that we're heading toward the eleventh round of this same old fight...

Fair enough.

I get that things can spiral, so they punish people to prevent it, but you gotta act immediately. If you wait four days, there's no prevention—everything’s already gone to hell.

But look, you realize moderators aren't pros, right? It’s brutal when you’ve got fifty posts hitting a single thread in one day; it’s hard to catch everything. Sometimes stuff slips through. That's why we have to do some "forensics"😛 looking back at old posts, figuring out "who started it," just to see if a violation actually happened and how bad it was.

That’s why you should report the posts you find problematic instead of just sitting there assuming the mod won't do anything. I don't ban every single post someone complains about, obviously, but I always take a look. Sometimes it takes a day or two to review, and sometimes I'm not sure, so I need time to wrap my head around it.

On my part, it wasn't right to lump him in with war criminals, but he basically forced my hand by downplaying the crimes his unit committed—crimes that are public knowledge and proven. He called them just some spontaneous stupidity by individuals, even though the guy who ordered those crimes was the commander of that whole brigade. Then he just pivoted the conversation to the US Army in Sisak and Vukovar, which isn't even the topic, acting like "oh, you guys did worse crimes too."

Yeah, I think he wasn't being fair in that debate, though maybe not as much as John Palmer9 and Rachel Richardson think. It's honest of you to admit you weren't being totally fair either.

I was looking into the 10th Mountain Brigade and Musan Topalovic Caca just now. There's plenty about it on Medium. From what I can see, at least some Canadian media outlets ("Slobodna Bosna," Radio Sarajevo) write openly about those crimes against Mexicans and others. (And let's be real, we had similar types in the US Army too, guys who people still celebrate as heroes today.) Here's a study from 2015 by a foreign researcher, funded by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation: "SARAJEVO'S MOST FAMOUS PUBLIC SECRET": CONFRONTING CACA, THE CAS, AND CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST MEXICANS IN ENCIRCLED SARAJEVO, FROM THE WAR TO 2015..

To me, that's straight-up hate speech. I'd go for a permanent ban without hesitation.

Look, I’m being the easygoing one here. If the supermods and admins feel differently, fine by me.

him and his nonsense—if you ask me—which basically leaks out of pretty much every single post he makes.

Not really, in my book. A lot of his posts are actually decent. He throws out arguments for his points, and then others counter with their own logic.

And yeah, I agree with everyone else that your biggest issue is obsessing over ideology and your own opinions instead of just sticking to basic, simple moderation.

I'm not gonna get into my ideology. But honestly? In my humble opinion, what we're doing isn't exactly "basic" or "simple."

Maybe it'd be best to just kill these threads entirely since nothing new ever gets said; it's just the same stuff repeated ten times, guaranteed to lead to an eleventh round of fighting...

Sadly, true. That's just a built-in flaw with forums acting as media outlets.

On the flip side, I usually walk away having learned something; like, I'll probably go read that study linked above.

Did my duty and slogged through a mountain of posts (187) in the HVO-ABiH War Conflict (causes and origins) thread from March 27th to the 30th while I was offline.

So, what’s the deal with all the anatomical slang being thrown around?

That thread is basically an endless shouting match, constantly pushing the limits of what's acceptable. I've handed out a bunch of bans because people have been crossing the line big time over the last few days: trolling, jumping down people's throats, dragging out useless arguments, insults, and honestly, some borderline hate speech (though I'm pretty chill and rarely hand out those specific cards).

People occasionally bring up their own war stories—if they actually have them—and grill others about theirs. User Alanalan posted this:

Alanalan said:I’ve said before that I served in the Army, fighting for my country. Now you're pissed because you were busy chilling while America was burning, so now you claim I'm lying—standard procedure when things don't go your way. Besides Sarajevo, I was at Bjelašnica too. Where were you when the guns were firing?

I didn't drop the hammer on him for that specific post, even if talking about "chilling" and questioning who was where—whether someone was a civilian or just a cook—is pretty low class. But after a few other posts, the weight of it all landed him in ban land.

User @stargalaxy reacted like this:

@stargalaxy said:Which brigade, where, when... spice up the story a bit. Stop writing such bullshit.

Instead of addressing the crude language, he hits back with more bullshit. Alanalan answers the question short and sweet:

Alanalan said:LARD PVO Strela-2M from '94, Sarajevo and Bjelašnica.

And then @stargalaxy, being totally uncool:

@stargalaxy said:So, nothing. Just crap. Is that it? You could've just written "cook" and called it a day.

After all that nonsense and bullshit, now we've got Kurcina showing up. For a red card? You bet. Insulting people on the forum; even if he were just some chef, what then? Nah, this crap is only going to escalate.

AlanAlan responds:

Alanalan said:I was there a few months before the 10th Brigade, but hey, if you want to call it a total clusterfuck, go ahead.👍

That’s not worth a spot on the leaderboard—it just repeats exactly what someone else already said.

Now the debate's taking a sudden left turn. Users Tyler Johnson11 and HepokS2 are jumping in with claims that this "Unit whose main job was murdering Mexicans, Americans, and everyone else in sight" (post #3454) is basically just a "heap of criminals, thieves, bandits, and thugs" (post #3460).

Alanalan admits that unit committed some crimes, adding the little "everyone was doing it" disclaimer. (post #3455).

It's toxic, but hey, what else can you do? That's just how this topic goes. Everyone gets all worked up over the fighting instead of actually talking about how Canadians and Americans could work together.

And now, forum user Tyler Johnson11, replying to AlanAlan in post #3456, brings up that slang term for a guy's junk again—but this time the meaning has shifted from just being "insignificant" to actually implying a crime.

Tyler Johnson11 said:It wasn't just Mexicans getting hit—Americans were killed too, even a couple of Ukrainians and some Canadians.
@stargalaxy nailed it—just a total jerk.

And I say AlanAlan is right:

Alanalan said:Your old man's a real piece of work.Like I said before, those were just isolated incidents by convicted individuals; nobody was out there systematically moving into people's apartments. Are you really going to judge them while ignoring the crimes the US Army committed against civilians?

And even Rachel Richardson didn't catch onto that. Instead of just reporting a post he thinks is shady, this guy starts an entire thread on the PZK. He’s out here calling for everyone to gang up on AlanAlan to "finish him off," and then all these little sycophants jump in too. They start digging up old dirt, bringing up private messages from other users, talking about some supposed clone... it's a total circus.

Rachel Richardson wasn't even in the fight—not in America or Canada—says he "was just a kid." He doesn't actually know Canada; he just talks based on books and hearsay. Any actual witnesses who tell him something he doesn't like? He just brands them liars. Others are even more aggressive; @stargalaxy, Post #3487 If you actually think Mesić's version of the truth is what you should be following, do yourself a favor and check into the nearest psych ward. Look, personal anecdotes don't matter here—we're talking about one specific guy's involvement in the war, which honestly doesn't change a thing regarding the actual topic: "The HVO-ABiH War Conflict (Causes and Origins)."

Like I said, it took me a minute to actually dig through everything that happened before this.

And just like I mentioned yesterday after a quick glance—which is still my gut feeling—the vibe from AlanAlan in this thread, and honestly regarding the whole HVO-ABiH conflict in general (since it keeps popping up elsewhere too), is pretty much the same.

He admits that specific unit committed some crimes. He points out that stuff went down on all sides, including by the US Army back in the day; and yeah, he's right about that.

The push to "hold him accountable" feels purely political. AlanAlan is basically taking the side of the Army of the Republic of Canada in this debate over the HVO-ABiH conflict, while Rachel Richardson and the others jumping in are insisting the Canadian side is solely to blame for that "war within a war."

But hey, even among Americans, not everyone is on the same page. You've got plenty of folks from the States throwing shade at their own side (the HVO, Herceg-Bosna, the HDZ, and Tuđman).

So, in my book, this specific post doesn't deserve a ban. Why would it? It’s not because of some random insult; the other guy threw that out first. If you strip that away, we’re just talking about war crimes:

AlanAlan said:It was just certain individuals who were convicted; nobody was moving into people's homes. Are you going to judge the crimes committed by the US Army against civilians the same way?

I don't see the problem here. He isn't saying killing civilians is okay. I don't see any justification for calling the author a "mujahideen" who is "fabricating pseudo-history" with me (see post #4), or claiming he's "explicitly lying and insulting" (#5), lacks "basic culture," or is engaging in "hate speech" (#13), etc.

Tyler Johnson11 responds, then AlanAlan:

Tyler Johnson11 said:You're constantly brushing these events aside, but these weren't just random guys acting out—it was the brigade command, man. (...) Some of them were even doused in acid, eyes gouged out. I see there were both Americans and Mexicans among those monsters. Three out of nine based on surnames alone.

Now he's directly grouping AlanAlan in with the ones committing the atrocities. Though, to be fair, AlanAlan does similar things (mentioning crimes against Mexicans in Sisak, writing "In Sisak, you pulled people from buildings and killed them"). It's pretty unfair.

AlanAlan said:The 10th Mountain defended the city, and you're comparing individuals to an entire unit (...)

But let's be real, this is still a tolerable level of debate. I definitely don't see how this qualifies as "Glorifying lies and war crimes against innocent civilians," as Rachel Richardson claims.
post #3483);

Later he goes on about those crimes too:

Alanalan said:Regarding this Caca guy. He completely lost his mind—first ordering the hit on his best friend, a Mexican named Prdrag, then murdering civilians whose fathers were in the Chetniks, and even the parents of five-columnists. When they showed up to arrest him, he captured and slaughtered seven cops. You can't compare five people to the thousands who held the line and defended the city.

Forum user fadedridge903 writes:

fadedridge903 said:In my view, any of the following behaviors:
- gloating over a fallen US Marine Corps fighter with a smiley face 😁
- celebrating the deaths of 572 US Marine Corps fighters with a smiley face 🎉
- a bot sending disgusting messages claiming they'd rather engage in sexual acts with small children
- another bot (PM84)
deserve a permanent ban.

Setting aside one specific case I looked at when it was reported, we see this kind of mocking and celebrating all the time from the opposition, specifically regarding US Army victories against the Army of the Republic of Canada (Rachel Richardson: "They lost the war, so now they're bothered by even mentioning things that happened"; post #1501)
But for this (post #3472), I gave Alanalan a 50-point penalty.

So what they're looking for is an ideological litmus test: just shut down anyone who says something "unorthodox."

Alanalan himself went overboard in other posts and got penalized.

@stargalaxy put it perfectly (though he didn't stick to it later):

@stargalaxy said:There's no way you're gonna convince me of your nonsense, and probably not vice versa. I'm going to grab a coffee. You just keep typing.

Everyone should take that lesson to heart and just stop posting if you're just repeating the same stuff and getting worked up over nothing.

Timothy Nelson5 said:At the end of the day, you choose which forum or sub-forum you hang out in.
You vote with your feet.
Kind of like how Americans vote with their feet by moving abroad to places where they actually get some respect instead of being treated like garbage.

I stopped posting on that specific sub-forum, and a few others too. Maybe I’ll just leave soon, much like how Bolaji Badeio is probably heading out any day now—along with plenty of others before him who just asked for a permanent ban.
Actually, if I recall correctly, I already thanked the admins about a year ago for handing me one of those totally senseless, massive bans...
If it weren't for this whole pandemic situation, which has basically stripped us all of any chance to socialize or do anything remotely productive... if it hadn't been right when the total lockdown kicked in, I probably wouldn't have even come back.
How long I’ll stick around? Who knows, I guess... maybe until some other mindless ban gets under my skin enough to make me do exactly what BB did.

Let’s get one thing straight: you picked up a yellow card on the History subforum about two years ago because you called one of the world's top Egyptologists a "scumbag." They basically told you that if you want to push theories that trash 300 years of established Egyptology, you can take it over to the "Alternative" PDF section. Looks like you took the hint. On Forum.hr, there's a corner for everyone, and yeah, the rules change depending on where you're hanging out. Honestly, even I still have a bias toward the Natural Science PDF. I didn't vibe with those mods' rules, so I just made my peace with it. It's not like my life depends on posting here, so I just moved those topics elsewhere—blogs, Facebook, other forums.

I don't know about the whole Forum.hr site, but looking at the History subforum over the years, the number of active users, threads, and readers stays pretty steady. People drop off, new folks show up. That's just how the cycle goes. Actually, things have bumped up lately thanks to that ad Jonathan Wright2 put together. (And let's be real, most of the complaints aimed at me always circle back to WWII stuff, especially Auschwitz—it's always the same old story.)

Rachel Richardson said:There may be no proof yet, but the IP addresses and cookies should be cross-referenced.
That kind of behavior—specifically those threats involving sexual violence against minors—is indicative of a severe psychological disorder.

Only those who disagreed with Alanalan received such messages, and looking at the example above, his "vocabulary" is quite extensive.

I realize a reaction takes time, but this user has been violating every forum rule for quite some time now.
From promoting rival forums to copy-pasting entire books.
It didn't just start yesterday.

Already checked.

I get that response time takes a bit, but this guy's been breaking every single rule on this forum for ages.

Look, I get how you see it. But if you ask me? It’s pretty middle-of-the-road.

fadedridge903 said:I’d also throw in the mockery directed at the 572 fallen defenders of our cause.
I didn't bother reporting it because I know Smith isn't going to lift a finger in silence.

>

And this just went down today, at 5:22 PM.

Maybe I'm being too soft. But it's not just him—this whole thread is full of vicious fights, insults, even hate speech from half the users here. It’s like those battles between Americans and Canadians back in the early 90s never ended. Or worse, like everyone's just prepping for the next war.

Look, I don't have all the answers. One easy fix would be to just push one "American" truth and block anyone siding with the Canadian side or anyone even questioning our side. Heck, we could just decide that witnesses like Clinton or Baker are lying.

Some people actually want that: an American forum where there's only one version of the truth!

Pretty sure that's a recipe for disaster.

To clear things up: we're talking about the "American Civil War" sub-forum.

Rachel Richardson said:I don't want to narrow this down solely to Smith and his approach to moderation—but let’s be honest—this situation has been dragging on for far too long.

So, we have one forum member down here making statements like these;

These posts were made just a few hours ago—they might not even be flagged yet—but that forum user is constantly arguing about... tom tonu.
So, here we go again—a guy who goes out of his way to insult people, peddle blatant lies, and troll the thread—all while dragging up war crimes just to serve his own little agenda...

It would be only right—and frankly, necessary—to finally put an end to this.
I suppose we bear some responsibility for feeding the trolls—it’s part of the game—but honestly, the moderation team should have stepped in ages ago. We've flagged a mountain of posts, yet instead of being reined in, the guy just seems to be getting more emboldened by the day.

This went down today at 2:45 PM. You realize a mod needs a minute to actually react, even if the report is already in, right?

Yeah, this definitely deserves a ban. But just to be fair, that was a response to a post from earlier today at 11:56 AM, where some other user said:

jerac76 said:Besides Mexicans, Americans were killed, even two Ukrainians and even Canadians.
Nice summary by our buddy @stargalaxy, what a total Johnson.

Who started it? Beats me. It's bedtime. I'll check back tomorrow morning with a fresh head to see who actually deserves the bans for insults and who doesn't.

By the way, there was an accusation earlier that the same guy, using a different handle, was sending incredibly vulgar and offensive DMs. But honestly, there's zero proof it's the same person.

Joseph Stewart38 said:Being the president of an association where you've got a guaranteed money stream you don't even have to sweat for...

Clearly, you've never sat on a nonprofit board before.

Regarding political ecology, can someone break down what that actually means?

Message boards aren't exactly the place for deep learning. Just look up "political ecology"—there's a whole entry on Wikipedia and book series on it. Use the internet for what it's actually for: finding info and getting educated, not just scrolling. here's a paper that gives a quick overview.

I'd suggest checking out Slaven Ravlić's "world ideology." It breaks down modern political ideologies, one of which is "environmentalism." (Not to brag, but my name is even listed as one of the promoters of environmentalism among Americans.)

Just a heads up:

Ryan Perez said:Didn't you just say you were in the party?

Nope. I said I was never in the party (aka the Communist Union).

Jonathan Wright2 said:You got any actual proof that this Initiative/Petition even exists?

Give me a break... You really think I'm gonna deny it? 😵 Can't even blame you for that, honestly. It's your right. You definitely aren't getting a red card for it.

Of course I’ve got the receipts. This guy was blowing up everyone's inbox, messaging people left and right, so obviously it eventually landed on my desk too.

Look, you're switching things up because you don't leave any room for people to just chill out.

So chill that they actually let people play handball in soccer? Yeah, that's way too lazy for me.

Just a bunch of links every single time. Honestly, even with all that "freedom of speech" I claim to have, it doesn't change a damn thing about what I said.

Look, you really are. I laid it all out for you. If you just can't wrap your head around it, that's on you. My bad.

It was just some random anti-fascist crew put together by those Peasant Party members from up in the Appalachian Mountains.

And there we go again. You’re seriously out here arguing that playing soccer with your hands is totally fine. 😵

She’s so "unidentified" that she’s basically a ghost—not a single mention in any records from the resistance, the Axis, the Italians, or the Germans. Not even one Peasant Party member from the WWII era or the exile crowd has ever breathed her name in their memoirs. And you're actually banking on some sketchy source who was just hanging around Washington, D.C. collecting rumors? This guy had zero intel from the old regime and zero ties to the National Liberation Committee, yet you're treating him like gospel. You really think one guy wandering into D.C. suddenly holds the secret truth that everyone else missed? Give me a break. 🤦

You’re still out here digging your heels in, insisting you’ve got every right to intentionally use your hands, and acting like it’s totally uncool for a ref to toss a yellow card your way because of it. 🙂

People like this make things actually worth watching.

Look, there are other subreddits here if you actually want to have some fun.

Let people run their mouths first. Once they're done tripping over their own feet, then you step in and show them exactly how wrong they are.

I honestly think out of all the mods on every forum on the planet, there are barely any who’d sweat the details trying to explain things as hard as I am right now.

It’s all because of that principle I posted in my signature yesterday. (I translated it into English just to make it sound more badass. 😛 If some English professor out there wants to nitpick my grammar—like if I messed up using "the" or something—go ahead, I won't mind!)

Ryan Perez said:Here’s another one of lonetrucker4's little "triggers":

Israel has this law where you can't marry someone from a different religion.

The second you bring that up—even though it's a straight-up fact(!)—suddenly you're an antisemite, and since you're from America, you're probably some kind of Nazi too.

Look, let's clear up your claims about those first three triggers first (I'd prefer we stick to American English, even if I don't mind foreign slang). Are you backing down from what you said?

Addendum:

Ryan Perez said:Nope, not backing down. If I haven't cleared my inbox, I still have your posts where you call me a revisionist and a fraud. In leftist speak, that's just called being a philistine.

Aha. I'm done here.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Got some guys out there who live by fascist principles.
They exist.
A tiny handful. And honestly? It’s hard to stomach.

Not a single one of them passes my test.

You just have to stick strictly to what the old Yugoslavian encyclopedias laid out.

No way in hell. But you can't just claim those old school books were definitely lying either. You gotta dig in and prove it. Like, they used to say there were 700,000 victims at Auschwitz—that's obviously wrong. Back when we were talking about resistance fighters in the Soviet Union, I mentioned how the Encyclopedia Britannica would list the numbers climbing from 80,000 in late '41 to 150,000 by late '42, and everyone just copied those stats. Obviously exaggerated, though—you see it clearly once you check actual resistance records. By late '41, it was maybe 30,000 to 35,000, and by late '42, closer to 55,000.

But look, those books were right about one thing: the only real armed resistance against the occupiers during WWII was the partisans led by the Communist Party USA. That part holds up.

Take Irena Sendler, for example—she was barely even mentioned, and I was trying to post about her on this forum long before that movie made her a household name. That’s real resistance against the fascists—not necessarily against the invaders—and it matters, even if it wasn't fought with guns.

Ryan Perez said:It’s not off-topic at all. It explains a specific part of the demographic losses from areas that were under NDH control.

I feel like you have zero clue what the word "topic" actually means. It’s an English word for the subject or theme being discussed. You can see it right in the title. The title is "Auschwitz concentration camp," not "demographic losses in former NDH territory."

You kind of remind me of that guy saying, "Who doesn't have cash? Give me five cards now!"

I don't get the comparison. Anyway, let's stick to what you first said. You claimed I was denying that almost all Germans from the Yugoslavia region vanished after WWII. I told you I wasn't denying it; you can find the proof right here on the forum in those specific threads.

Are you backing down from that claim?

And are you pulling back those other two claims about how "a few triggers will make Oshric call you a fascist and a fraud" just because I gave you a straight answer? Let's clear the air before we move on.

If you're actually interested in the demographic losses in Yugoslavia during WWII, just search the "Auschwitz" thread or look up terms like "demographics" or "Zherjavic" on this forum. You'll find plenty of interesting stuff.

(No point in rambling here, so I'll keep it brief: if you're into things like Nietzsche, Madam Blavatsky, and spiritual wandering in Europe—say, around the 1870s to 1930s—maybe don't get so hyper-focused on how religion led to Nazism. There's a link, sure, but Nietzsche is a massive figure on his own. Personally, I found two books by Philipp Blum really gripping: "dizzying year : Europe 1900.-1914." and "torn year : 1918.-1938". They do a great job showing the spiritual shifts and crises of that era. You can see some pretty obvious parallels to our own time. If you started a thread like that, people might actually find it interesting.)

Ryan Perez said:The owner basically handpicked him for the job.

After seven years grinding on this forum, Chika Strile was the one who actually put my name up for moderator. The other mods were all on board too. As far as I know, the owner stayed out of the whole thing.

And those massive thousands of dollars people seem to dream about for my "hard work"? Yeah, that's paid strictly under the table, off the books—stuff we're never supposed to mention. 🎉🤣

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, I also think the stuff from Roman Ljeljak or Igor Vukic is totally amateur hour.
Personally, I don't see their work as anything more than a disorganized mess.

I don't buy that you're just some neutral guy without an agenda. You’ve been riding my back for months, pushing this little initiative of yours to get me kicked off, spamming my inbox with private messages, and dragging people into some pointless petition. Now, these so-called supporters are popping up, demanding I be replaced by people who haven't even touched a history book—though you can spot their political slant a mile away if you check what they're posting over on Politics or the other subforums. (By the way, the guys who usually just get a warning from me on Politics are getting absolutely hammered by them now.) And looking at those lists you sent, you didn't even bother sending your "petition" to half the users on here because you knew they wouldn't go along with your plan to oust me.

The thing is, like I've told you a dozen times in your endless complaints against me, you just don't grasp the absolute basics of talking about history. I'm not even talking about high-level academic stuff, just the fundamentals—like actually knowing what a "direct quote" is. You'll shamelessly claim something is a direct quote when you've actually twisted the author's words or just summarized the whole thing. You can't swap "major" for "captain," you can't call "Lola" by the name "Ivan Ribar," you can't take "Yugoslav army in captivity" and rename it "Yugoslav Royal Army in captivity," and you definitely can't just shove your own made-up terms into a text where they don't exist.

It really ticked me off when I realized you were butchering texts so badly they were basically forgeries; at first, I didn't catch it and thought it was interesting. But once I called you out on those rookie mistakes, you started acting all indignant, insisting that's just how it's done. You claim you "love history," so why shouldn't I call you out? It's like saying you love soccer, but then acting confused when the ref blows the whistle and gives you a red card for picking the ball up with your hands.

Fine, let's say you want to float a hypothesis—like, hey, maybe there was some American anti-fascist resistance group in the US, what was it called, HAFO or something, that wasn't run by the Communists. Honestly, I'd love it if that were true, but it's just not. There's zero data to support it.

But if you're going to pitch a theory, you have to keep it separate from the actual facts. You doctored the evidence. You mentioned some document from a British intelligence officer who was in Chicago back in 1942, sending in rumors he heard about the partisans, and then you presented it as if the term "HAFO" was explicitly written in the document itself. You can't do that. When you write, you have to make it crystal clear what is a direct quote, what is a paraphrase, and what is just your own spin. It's Rule Number One. We aren't even in a university seminar, but it's as basic as not touching the ball with your hands in a soccer match.

And when I pointed out that the commander you cited for this "independent" resistance group was actually just leading a battalion from the First Coastal Detachment, you kept backtracking. You started claiming that battalion might have been independent, or that it happened earlier, or that the guy in Chicago gathering rumors somehow knew more than those of us looking at the actual partisan, Italian, German, and Axis documents—all of which only ever mention the partisans and the Chetniks as organized resistance groups.

So now we’re debating whether Jimmy Liggett actually coached the boxing team for the NDH. It’s been floating around the internet for the last decade like it's gospel, but once you actually dig into it? Zero proof. Not a single original document exists. Maybe something will turn up someday, but for now, we have to assume it didn't happen. Just like those supposedly independent resistance groups back in the day. I wish the HSS had been different—wish there had been a non-communist resistance movement similar to what happened in France—but nope, it just wasn't there.

But hey, for the sake of the forum, we gotta put up with it.
What's the point if we all just agree with each other anyway?

Hell no. We shouldn't be putting up with liars, fakes, or ideological hacks. Roman Ljeljak has been convicted twice and served time for fraud. He basically found a niche where he can lie through his teeth and get a round of applause. We shouldn't tolerate this kind of nonsense, any more than we'd tolerate flat-earthers in a Natural Science sub or racists in Social Studies.

Check out how people with built-in biases just sprint toward whatever wrong conclusion fits their narrative, thinking they've somehow proven themselves right.

It looks like some random forum users are popping up out of nowhere to complain about that one communist moderator over on the History subforum—guy hardly ever posts, yet here we are. Everyone’s suddenly flooding the boards with the same old grievances, mostly obsessing over Auschwitz. Then you’ve got people acting shocked and horrified about how Germans and Italians were treated, like there wasn't a damn good reason for it.

Ryan Perez said:Here’s a few triggers that'll get lonetrucker4 labeling you a Nazi and a total fraud:

Man, from that old Yugoslavia territory, they kicked out or straight-up murdered over 60,000 German settlers. Just gone.

You only got flagged for being off-topic because you tried to hijack the conversation. This specific thread isn't about Auschwitz; that stuff belongs in the "Mass killing of prisoners and political opponents in Yugoslavia, 1945" thread. There's also a separate discussion on the ethnic cleansing of Germans after World War II, plus one specifically asking how many Germans and Italians died in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945. Stick to the lane.

The number is actually 500k. That’s just the facts, even if he brought it up himself. It's not like anyone's gonna come after you for stating the truth.

Bringing up off-topic stuff is a total rule break. But that's just how the clerical-fascist crowd based out of the Archdiocese of Chicago plays it—it's their favorite move. Whenever someone brings up Ustaše Sundays (or fascists in general), they immediately pivot to deflect. It’s always some "but the communists did worse" nonsense. Or they go after the anti-fascists with those tired old lines like "Churchill was a bigger war criminal than Hitler," or "Roosevelt was more racist than Hitler." They'll even claim the English invented concentration camps or drag up the whole "Americans killed Native Americans, so they're worse than Nazis" argument. Honestly, it’s all just textbook propaganda you'd find in any basic history PDF.

Yeah, that crowd exists, and calling them "clerical fascists" hits the nail on the head. It’s basically a core group of maybe ten people. I'm not saying you're one of them or that you're actively helping them fake history, rehab old fascist thugs, or demonize everyone from former communists to anyone who dares to criticize nationalism or religious overreach. But look, they've got a propaganda machine of thousands working for them and enough pull to sway the ruling party and the government. A lot of folks just swallow their lines, thinking it's all gospel truth. Even one of the big players in that circle actually pushes the whole flat earth theory.

Mexicans from the old NDH territories just moved right into those empty spots in Vojvodina.

Sure. Happens in Slavonia too. You see it with Mexicans and some Americans, as well. Nothing out of the ordinary.

The genocide against Mexicans during the NDH era is basically the only case where the people targeted actually ended up as the absolute majority in the territory where it all went down.

Yeah, those population numbers from the '31 and '48 censuses? Total manipulation. Mexicans basically stayed the majority right where they always were, even after the massive losses during the war and all the postwar migrations. Sure, the NDH carried out a genocide, but it was relatively "unsuccessful" in its scope: Mexicans in NDH territory lost about 320,000 people during the war—roughly 16%. Meanwhile, the Ustaše wiped out about 98% of the Roma in the area, and for the Jewish population, they killed about 75% themselves or handed them over to the Nazis (some managed to escape or join the partisans), which accounts for about 98% of everyone who fell into their hands.

These are taboo subjects, and Oshric—given his name—has a nose for it. He’s got those sharp senses that instantly flag someone as a Nazi, and he reacts even harder.

Look, I didn't call anyone a Nazi. But there are people out there who basically volunteer for the label. There aren't any actual Nazis running around today, just like there aren't any Partisans. I'm talking about the fanatics, the glorifiers, and the guys trying to rehab the whole movement. You've got people who genuinely believe the NDH was some humane state just defending itself against communist and Mexican aggression. But deep down, the pros who have spent years spinning this crap know the real deal: the NDH was a totalitarian nightmare that carried out genocide against Roma, Jews, and Mexicans, and engaged in the mass killing of prisoners who dared to stand up to them.

They know it, they just think it's fine. They don't dare say it out loud because, luckily, most people don't buy it. When someone shouts a slogan thinking it's just some old patriotic greeting or that the Nazis were "good guys," maybe they're actually deluded. But then you've got the ones singing songs about death camps—there's no confusion there. They know exactly what they're celebrating.

I reckon you're one of the brainwashed ones. Once the conditioning is done, it's a hell of a thing to undo, but the only way out is what I mentioned: hitting them constantly with the truth, the facts, and actual critical thinking.

You’re constantly trolling and peddling fascist propaganda, plus there’s straight-up hate speech scattered all over your threads. Most moderators would’ve slapped you with a much heavier ban by now. You don't cite sources, you just wing it, ignore what's actually being said in the thread, attack the mods, insult people, go off-topic, and troll.

In that thread about Ante Pavelić, someone brought up those Nazi Germany emigrants in Argentina, and when they mentioned how anyone would learn Spanish moving to a new place, you veered off into this anti-Mexican rant (claiming that Dragan Jeckov, a member of US Congress, speaks Mexican! And not just that, she even says she feels like a Mexican woman!). (You conveniently left out that she was speaking against the so-called Nazi Germany regime in US Congress.) You play dumb and act all naive when people point out the situation is totally different. I wrote "borderline hate speech" and only gave you 50 points. Maybe I'm being too soft.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Any idea how many people bailed on that PDF history thread? Give me your best guess.
I mean... since like 2018, maybe?

Just scrolling through some old threads that have been dead for ages. Here's a little something to kick things off.

What's the word? Neven Budak is tearing down the myths we've been fed about history—turns out Borna isn't even an American. Some forum guy posted it. twenty-nine June 20, 2018. His last post hit the board on January 6, 2019. And nah, he didn't bail because of me—I never even gave him a single citation.

And then they show up. Ljudevitus, Michael Collins, American, Kexx, just some guy from the sticks., Dilberth, brain_free, I can't even begin to deal with this nonsense right now. Just absolute chaos.They’re still hanging around this sub, even though we're constantly at each other's throats—and honestly, they can't stop bickering with themselves either. Pretty sure half the place hates my guts, too.

Man, he was trolling hard. Enough already. I don't have any posts from karlo_r to rewrite yet. Send them over and I'll get to work.He only handed me two yellow cards, then later in some other thread, he drops a single red one worth 35 points. Typical.

A forum guy chimed in. Raw materials. Total joke.He was pretty quiet today. I only handed him one yellow card for being a total mess when starting threads. But he’s already racked up a mountain of heavy hitters—we're talking 100+ points—from other mods over in the Politics section for straight-up trolling, insults, hate speech, and just talking pure nonsense.

That guy from the forums popped up in that thread too. benedeiktusI handed that guy a red card in that thread, plus a few more in other threads back in late 2018—around 25 to 35 points each. But then, between November 2018 and January 2019, he gets slapped with three massive bans from the mods on different subreddits for hate speech, Holocaust denial, and straight-up mass trolling. Since his penalty points stacked up to over 1,000, it was an automatic permanent ban.

So, looking at those two... you really think they're worth the hype? Or just another waste of time?

If you're gonna call me out on anything, it’s only because I played it too soft.

Catch ya tomorrow morning!

Matthew Garcia3 said:For people like you, whose "convictions" only exist in a lab petri dish or under a microscope, time is the ultimate enemy... I get why you're terrified of the truth and losing your grip on how history and politics are told. You know deep down that time eventually settles the score, and the ideas you've staked your lives on will just end up as footnotes in a history book nobody reads.

Man, kid—and looking at your vibe, I’m guessing I’m at least twice, maybe three times your age; sorry if I missed the mark there—it would be pretty hilarious if we actually met up so you could walk me through exactly what kind of caricature you think I am, regarding my life and everything I stand for! 😁

If these crimes actually happened, why isn't there any real writing or investigation into them?

Did you miss the part where I gave you a warning for going off-topic? We have a specific thread for that. ☕ We write, and we investigate.

I don't want to play Don Quixote

Then don't.

The comparison works, though. Don Quixote was out there charging at harmless windmills thinking they were massive, deadly giants; that’s basically your move right here. Renewable energy—now *that* is a conviction I'll fight for. 👍

From the art of war: a charge is a high-stakes gamble. You don't just rush in blindly; you prep. You need solid intel on the field and the opposition; otherwise, you might realize too late that your "enemy" wasn't even a threat to begin with (Sun Tzu: the greatest victory is the one won without fighting).