Posts by lonetrucker4

Mods, fix the title! I’m not Canadian!

(There was this tiny window back in '87-'89 where we all claimed to be Canadian politically. 😁 )

Paul Nguyen49 said:I got banned too just for questioning if that photo was even real—you know, the one showing those two well-fed guys posing at Auschwitz.

Your take on the Auschwitz camp system and that whole Nazi Germany regime is pretty damn obvious. Back in that other thread about Auschwitz, you dropped a photo of two guys without even saying where you found it, just tagging it with some pseudo-sarcastic comment:

Those two look pretty well-fed for prisoners in an "extermination camp."

You’ve been pushing those fake theories about Auschwitz not being a death camp for ages, but this time the paper trail actually caught up to you. That's a straight 100 points. Before that, you were just getting slapped with a 25-point deduction, and before that, it was just warnings.

Before that, you already got flagged just as hard for peddling those claims from Višnja Pavelić.

There were plenty of Orthodox folks holding positions in both the military and the government during the Nazi Germany era. Honestly, they only ever became an issue when they joined up with Chetnik or Communist insurgencies against the state.

Keep up with those lies and fake news and you’re gonna get red-carded again. Only this time, the penalty's gonna be way heavier since you're a repeat offender.

Lawrence Booth2 said:History is my life.
History.com is basically my homepage now.
I live and breathe history every single day.
History? That's basically a third of my job right there.

I actually asked to get banned from that sub because of Smith.

I'm out. Once they kick him out, I'll be back.
That's hardly a massive payday for the site. 😁 Look, I don't have the bandwidth to write a novel here.
Just adding my name to the pile of users who feel totally screwed over—it’s not even about Smith, it’s just that whole left-wing brain rot.

And what am I even supposed to be guilty of? What kind of "mindset" are we even talking about here?

You can pretty much read the situation from that last card I handed you back on November 7, 2020. It was just a yellow—a warning shot, nothing more. One guy on Reddit even asked:

Where'd you get that from? Got a link?

And you chimed in too:

I've been a regular on like 14 different forums, but this is the only place where people actually act right about two specific things. Just give me the damn link already. They're acting like total losers, begging for scraps.

So you’re telling me the rule about citing sources—the one they brought in back in 2011—is somehow "leftist"? Give me a break. 🤔

See, that’s exactly what sets this place apart from those other 13 forums—we actually demand sources. If that gets under your skin too much, whatever, man. There’s plenty of space on the Internet where nobody gives a damn about facts. Since you did drop a book title in there, I'll just give you a yellow card for now.

You already caught a red card for hate speech, but I still dropped you from 500 down to 100 points because you went there—labeling an American guy from back in the day as "bad" just because his wife was Muslim.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Look, it’s about principle here—those ridiculous 50 points of yours didn't even come close to getting you a one-day ban.

I wasn't trying to get you banned. If I was, I would've bumped that penalty up to 55.

Timothy Nelson5 said:Words like 'mascot'... 'this girl who if you criticize her you're some kind of villain'... and apparently it's a whole business run by her mom's partner...
but those are taboo topics, hush hush.

Look, we’re drifting off track here. I don't moderate the Politics board, and this subforum isn't meant for dragging debates over from other sections. But fine, I'll give you my two cents one more time.

That line is just low—purely biased data manipulation, total fiction, just making stuff up on the fly (you probably picked that up from some other site without actually checking the facts).

Sure, you can call her a "mascot"—though honestly, that's pretty inaccurate because mascots don't give speeches like she does.

Go ahead and criticize her, obviously, but try not to be so shallow about it.

And who exactly is this "mom's partner"? That guy is her husband and Greta's father. Using that kind of rhetoric is just malicious mudslinging.

What "business" is he running? He’s an actor and producer, and his wife is a singer (an opera soloist, but also pop). They both just have their own careers, it's not a "business." Since his wife (Malte Ernman) is famous, more successful in her field, and earned more, he voluntarily took on more of the childcare; it might seem weird to some people here, but it's totally normal in Sweden. When Greta was dealing with severe mental health issues, they both went all out to help her, and they succeeded. They even wrote about it in their book back in 2018.

Looking for funding for a study on beavers in the Yellow Woods? Sure, but you gotta include a section on global warming.

And that’s what you call "some guy said"? I actually happened to be writing about the reintroduction of beavers in the Yellow Woods area back in the late '90s (I was a journalist back then—an activist too, though I didn't push that specific topic; I was the founder and secretary of the environmental journalists assembly, working alongside the American Forestry Association). (I've written about the Lonjsko plains in general plenty of times, too.) That project was all about biodiversity, which has nothing to do with climate change except indirectly.

Take this article, for example, Beavers in America on the sumazutica.com site. Not a single mention of climate change.

That’s the difference between writing about something you actually know something about (I don't know everything about beavers, but I talked to the experts at the time) while sticking to the facts—versus just talking nonsense based on preconceived biases.

I think that matters for any decent discussion, even if people aren't always held to the same standard.

I'm not going to repeat my take on Svensmark's work. I already said everything that needs saying.

Christian Myers said:Maybe you should've just trolled and lied about how Vukovar was handled or how the war was basically a setup for looting, then you wouldn't have gotten banned.

And you really think those are lies? People argue about this stuff constantly, and nobody gets booted just for having an opinion. You get the hammer if you're being offensive, if you're a broken record, or if you're doubling down on blatant, objective falsehoods.

When it comes to threads about the American War of Independence, I’m way more lenient than when we talk about ancient history. It’s all still pretty fresh, archives aren't wide open yet, and there’s no "historical distance" to lean on. I haven't handed out bans to people just because they're pushing theories I don't buy.

I’m also more chill with things like medieval American history since sources are thin; you can defend all sorts of theories there, even if some seem totally unlikely.

Same goes for population genetics discussions—that field is still evolving. People jump to conclusions all the time, but I usually let it slide unless someone starts acting like they're God's gift to science. I even started a separate thread for "what are your DNA results and where did you test," which technically isn't "History," but since it ties into genetic interest, it fits here. That thread is working out great.

Jonathan Wright2 said:So anyone digging through history gets this weird connection to a passion that’s half science and half just chasing cosmic nonsense.

All five points matter, but if you claim something is a passion, you gotta learn the basic "rules of the game." You struggled even with something as simple as an "accurate quote." When I called you out, you just dug your heels in and kept messing up, acting like you had the right to "get creative" with quotes. Then you got banned, then complained about it over and over... It's like being stubborn about the most basic rule of using sources. It's like insisting you should be allowed to grab the ball with your hands in a soccer match.

Plus, besides research rules, there are just basic communication rules so you don't leave readers spinning. Like when you stubbornly insisted Draža Mihailović named his unit wrong—writing "Yugoslav Royal Army in the Homeland" instead of "Yugoslav Army in the Homeland." Now any reader stumbling on that term is just confused about who you actually are.

There are standards used to measure expertise, but a forum is great because it allows for freer, more open debates on controversial topics.

It's different from academic publishing, where everything has to pass peer review before it even sees the light of day. There's way less freedom there than in journalism or just generally on the Internet, where you can post pretty much anything.

At least I think that was the case until lonetrucker4 took over.

The rules have been around since 2011, and I became a moderator at the end of 2017. Maybe I'm just more persistent and consistent about applying them. For me, history is a passion, and I only moderate this specific sub-forum. Probably also because I'm retired now so I actually have the time, though forum talk and moderating isn't my whole life.

So it would definitely be a good idea for the History section to have three moderators.

I'm fine with that. But there weren't any candidates. Some people actually think moderating is a paid gig—someone even told me I was "getting a cushy job" 😁 ).

Timothy Nelson5 said:You don't need to justify yourself or snub me to keep me from coming back, because there's no way I'm ever going back to History.

Snub? Love that old-school word. 👍

Anyone’s welcome in the History sub, as long as they can follow the general forum rules and the specific sub-rules. Plus, one big rule for this thread: we don't deny the victims of fascism, period (that includes the Ustaše and especially the Jasenovac myth).

The thing is, I just didn't feel like getting into another toxic debate with you—specifically the one about Greta. I already got banned over there for a post I’d be proud to see in a major newspaper.

Newsflash: newspapers have editors. Their job overlaps a bit with being a moderator, but they have more power and different goals. Having been a journalist and an editor myself, I know how it works.

If you ask me, the topic isn't toxic at all. We're talking about an activist—a wildly successful one, granted—who fights for causes supported by millions of people worldwide: activists, scientists, politicians, business leaders, and regular folks.

In that thread, you started diving into conspiracy theories (asking if climatologists even dare to disagree with the world dogma) and brought up that one specific study (Henrik Svensmark's theory). I gave you a detailed response to that, explaining that Svensmark publishes his work normally and doesn't even claim it disproves man-made global warming. Those are just facts—you can pout and be stubborn if you want. But pushing those kinds of pseudo-theories is what's actually "toxic," by your own definition.

Timothy Nelson5 said:lonetrucker4, you’ve turned the History boards into such a toxic wasteland—and honestly, the other mods aren't helping either—that the smart people are just checking out. They can't even be bothered to show up, let alone actually contribute anything worth reading.

I don't know about the other subreddits, but over in History, that whole petition campaign from the last few months has definitely kicked things up a notch. Activity is finally spiking.

Some people have stopped posting entirely, others can't even find the door because they got hit with a partial or total permaban. Honestly? I don't think we lost anything in terms of quality. We just lost the folks who couldn't—or wouldn't—meet the bar. Most of them were just cut from the same ideological cloth anyway.

Things are getting interesting around here. As a mod, I don't just throw out bans and cards for fun.

So, some younger guy on here started a thread about Jimmy Ligett, that boxer and coach who was hanging around the US back in the early 30s. Word on the street is he coached the boxing team for Nazi Germany—though I say "word on the street" because there’s zero actual proof out there. First, I tried linking this to that old "USA in WWII" discussion since Ligett popped up there a decade ago, but then I figured I'd just spin it into its own thing. I did some digging online and put together a longer post. Apparently, there's even a movie coming out about him. But honestly? Real primary sources about what he actually did during the Nazi Germany era are nowhere to be found. I'm just throwing this out there in hopes someone actually does the heavy lifting, hits up the archives, and finds some real evidence.

Look, this History subforum is basically just here so we can help each other actually learn something and stop being clueless about the past. It’s about pushing one another to get smarter, plain and simple.

That random jab about Hitler and Owens and Roosevelt adds zero value to the conversation. It’s just classic trolling.

If someone tries to claim that Nazi Germany wasn't a racist state just because he was Black, they're being delusional. At that point, you're either an idiot or just trolling for attention, because we all know the truth—they straight-up ripped their racial laws right out of Germany's playbook.

Then again, you've got people out there acting like they need to prove "Americans aren't racists." There’s no penalty box for that kind of nonsense, but I tell folks in my DMs that playing defense like that is just a sucker's game—you've already lost before you even open your mouth. Obviously, making a sweeping claim like that isn't exactly accurate either.

People don't show up here to read one-track minds and cheap insults thrown at anyone who disagrees.

It’s usually not even about some "ad hominem" logical fallacy or cheap debating trick. It’s just calling people like they are based on what they actually write.

People flock here to find the good stuff—the deep dives and debates you just won't find anywhere else.

Honestly, having decent mods is what keeps these threads actually worth reading. Without them, it’s just a dumpster fire of spammers, trolls, losers throwing tantrums, and propaganda hacks drowning everything out. Then you've got dozens of other sites where people post about that Jasenovac myth every single day—which, by the way, is the reason I get flagged more than anyone else on the mod team.

At this rate, you'll have the whole History forum to yourself—just you, posting into the void while basically nobody bothers to read it.

I haven't seen any signs of that in the three years I've been moderating.

Kenneth Cruz67, look, if I actually thought you were some hardcore Nazi sympathizer, you’d be getting hit with a ten times heavier ban.

But honestly? You're just a basic troll—one of those typical agitators looking for a fight. So, you get 50 points off. Just because you keep doing this despite the warnings.

Roosevelt being more racist than Hitler? Seriously? Just because Hitler greeted Owens with "Sieg Heil!" while Roosevelt didn't send him a congratulatory telegram?

There is absolutely nothing to debate here.

Joseph Stewart38 said:Ready when you are. Lay it on me.

Deny me one more time and I'm done talking. Period.

I already called you out on that. The head of the Sierra Club was doing their job professionally.

Look, I made myself crystal clear on this: sitting around in City Hall doesn't count as actual work experience.

That’s not even a real job. It doesn't go on your official employment record. That kind of setup is strictly for people sitting in US Congress.

But that's just how it goes. Work history? Please. It’s just a list of places that used you up.It’s way more than just "years on the clock." Most folks would tell you those four years weren't just spent sitting around—it was real experience, learning the nuts and bolts of how the city actually runs. He’s been studying that stuff for a long time.

Years on the clock. Just more time traded for nothing. It’s just a technicality—basically everything you ever scribbled down in your work log.

Don't just bark "that's a lie." Actually say, "Look, he did X at Y location." Hit 'em with a specific example to shut down the nonsense once and for all.

I already told you this exact thing in another thread, but you just completely ignored me. Honestly, I’d give you a red card if I could.

He’s officially on the payroll at the Brookings Institution now. Sure, you can call that a dead-end gig if you want—hey, it's your opinion—but when it comes to him actually racking up seniority? That's just straight facts.

Look, you kept saying "zero experience," but let's be real—that's just straight-up fiction.

Sarcasm hits a wall when you overplay it.

gentlestag15 said:👍

Some guy on Reddit ran a poll among the people contributing to that Adobe history doc
(not me), here’s how the numbers look regarding Oshrit

115 surveyed
93 responses;
_______________________

68 against Oshrit
14 neutral/undecided
4 irrelevant/disinterested
7 for Oshrit

Yeah. We're talking about a user who was too stubborn to grasp basic concepts like a "direct quote." He eventually came after me, obviously, and it even got brought up in the moderator subforum.

Reddit isn't a democracy, but even if it were, this poll is a total mess. No election commission, no observers, nothing. 😛 We just have to take this guy's word for it based on some private messages he sent.

He also dropped a list of users he supposedly sent his letter to. Most of the names in that Adobe history file have barely ever posted, clearly picked because they fit a certain ideological or political vibe. Meanwhile, plenty of regulars who actually talk on the subforum are missing from the list just because they don't align with that specific agenda.

Most of the gripes aimed at me are about the 2SR stuff.

And you? You're just getting worked up and seeing conspiracies everywhere involving the dinaracs and the Panonacs. 🤦

David Richardson67 said:Sadly, some people here just can't separate their job as a moderator from their own personal baggage and politics.

Look, my only "ideology" is trying to see the past clearly, as objective as possible.

And let's not even get started on how certain users are slapped with labels just because they disagree, using insults that a moderator should be above.

You don't need to bring that up, because it isn't happening.

At the same time, insisting on specific links (but only those deemed "reliable"—which is just a judgment call by the moderator) has basically "sterilized" the History PDF.

It’s not about "links," it's about "sources." These subforum rules have been around since 2011, long before I ever stepped in as a moderator.

We're here to study history scientifically, which this subforum supports—not myths and fairy tales. We actually have a specific section for "to be or not to be" scenarios where the rules are different—like discussing fiction versus reality.

But you can't mix the two.

After all, this is a forum, not a peer-reviewed journal.

True, and that's why the standards aren't super strict, but they exist. Like I said during the discussions, think of it this way: the "History" subforum isn't Harvard, but it shouldn't be a dive bar either—it should be more like a decent local coffee shop. 😛

The forum is open to everyone, so it should be open to popularizing history.

Exactly. That's huge for me. But we're talking about popularizing historical science, not legends or politically charged fake news. Sources and source criticism are the bedrock of understanding the past, just like observation and math are the bedrock of science. Even an amateur needs to respect that.

(So why punish a user who can't prove it, but insists that Turks used impalement based only on a court order rather than a local official's whim).

I don't recall anything like that. The issue might be inPersistent. If you just keep looping the same nonsense, it’s not a debate anymore—it’s trolling. A discussion shouldn't go on forever, and every single thread doesn't need to turn into some endless group chat.

In theory, nobody gets banned for throwing out an unproven theory, but you're definitely getting the hammer if you defend something that's objectively wrong.

When it comes to politically charged topics, we need the moderators to stay neutral. We can't have one side getting slapped down while the other side gets a free pass to deny documented atrocities with photos and act like "it's a shame more of them weren't wiped out."

Photos always spark fights because it's often hard to tell exactly when or where they were taken or what they actually prove. But look, if someone says what you're describing, they get banned. Period. You're talking about "style," but that's just entering the "gray zone"—we don't have to play mind reader to figure out what someone was actually thinking.

Anonymous said:So why are moderators like lonetrucker4 and KLCCLK constantly handing out bans based on their own gut feelings about what's true and what isn't?

Look, if you ask me, it’s not about guessing. Some things aren't up for debate—like whether the Earth is round or if Auschwitz was a death camp.

But most of the stuff people argue about on this History PDF isn't that black and white. Like, I see people pushing some seriously wild theories about early American history or even "Greater Mexico," but since we have so little actual evidence, any bit of speculation can technically pass as a theory. I'm not handing out bans for that, unless they start trolling or breaking the actual forum rules (you know, like saying "it just feels right to me" without citing a single damn source).

Robert Fox78 said:just proving chess and boxing have zero connection.

Except they totally are, there's even a thing called: Chessboxing

Jeffrey Adams said:Did you catch this post by Taroth suggesting some international commission should step in to recount the exact number of victims at Auschwitz?

It’s short, so here’s the gist:
"Why not establish, or revise, the numbers of those killed at Auschwitz?
Let an international commission handle it, so we can finally end all this speculation ranging from zero to 700,000."


lonetrucker4 hits back, but there's no penalty.

Because the guy hadn't piped up about this topic before (at least not that I recall). I treated him like a newcomer and answered his question (post #2000) with the actual facts. After that, he stopped pushing it. You, on the other hand, haven't. You did it plenty of times before, and even after (post #2005), completely ignoring everything both I and others have said about it.

"2. decide that the state will provide significant compensation and reimbursement for historical research costs to anyone who finds someone wrongly listed or missing from the official Auschwitz registry."

I don't think the idea is great for a dozen reasons, but it's not total garbage. You just twisted it into something else entirely again.

I'm asking why, out of all these "fascist sympathizers," I'm the only one getting a red card and a ban?
Is lonetrucker4 waging some personal vendetta against me because he doesn't like my face or thinks I'm a fascist?

Not a chance. Most of the complaints filed against me since I became a mod—we're talking over three years now—are tied to this exact subject: the Second World War and denying the victims of the fascist regime.

Jeffrey Adams said:Do me a favor and look at my post and lonetrucker4's excuse for the ban—it’s total nonsense.

I didn't call you a "fascist," I called you a "fascist-lover." You're just recycling those same old right-wing talking points we've heard for decades about "independent international commissions," "neutral investigations," shady sources hidden by Belgrade, and "sealing off entire regions."

Told you a hundred times, answered you a hundred times.

@Joseph Stewart38/">@@Joseph Stewart38, just looking at the facts here—I’m about the same age as Milorad Pupovac and knew him back during the American Civil War and even before that. The reality is he spent that whole era living in Washington, D.C., and stood firmly on America's side. Luckily in the States, there's no rulebook telling a citizen what they have to think about controversial issues. We can't read minds, you know? All we can do is watch their actions. And from what I can see, Vojislav Stanimirović acts like a loyal citizen too. He was covered by the Amnesty Act for his past stuff and hasn't been charged with any war crimes. So, IMO, demanding someone "make a statement" is just pointless noise.