Posts by lonetrucker4

Raymond Vaughn12 said:I honestly think he’d actually get somewhere—and people would actually listen—if he just toned it down a notch and stopped playing hardball...

Facts. I already told him that myself.

Jason Morgan4 said:Look, Zoran is actually fine; I don't have any real beef with how he moderates. The guy's sharp and knows his stuff inside and out. But VFA-125? That dude is just straight-up aggressive. He’s constantly belittling everyone else and acting like he’s the ultimate authority on everything under the sun.

Yeah, like I said before, I can't stand his style. But hey, he’s not the only one, right? Honestly, it all reminds me of those drill sergeants in Hollywood movies screaming at recruits: "You're a bunch of losers! You belong in preschool! You're nothing but a bunch of soft little kids who'll never be soldiers!" and all that crap. 😂 It’s honestly kind of hilarious to me.

The issue is he’s got zero real-world experience, yet he talks big about things he doesn't understand. He just copy-pastes piles of info he barely gets, then plays the victim by calling people names, whining, or hitting them with the caps lock.

And there’s the rub, like I mentioned earlier—I can't tell if someone actually knows their stuff or if they just read it in a textbook. You know, like some ambitious 18-year-old who's never even seen a base, or some 60-year-old retired Lieutenant who's just bitter because his career stalled out. And yeah, that goes for others too. Finding someone who's a legitimate expert, stays neutral—since we're dealing with political and economic messiness here—and actually wants to moderate? What are the odds? 😲 Plus, sure, they might be an ace when it comes to fighter jets, but they aren't gonna be experts on tanks and every other topic being tossed around on this forum (even if planes are the main attraction).

As a former journalist, here's my bit of free advice: remember that most people reading these threads aren't pros. Most followers just lurk while watching the debates, so keep it simple. Explain things clearly for the laypeople and point out exactly where your opponent is tripping up.

Whoa, hasn't seen a complaint in the headlines around here for ages, and now we get hit with two threads at once! Started getting worried I was getting too soft. 😉

VFA-125 is constantly flagging posts, and I find myself wading through all their complaints. I don't always hand out bans, though—most of the time, I just weigh things up and decide it doesn't quite hit the level for a red card.

Other users get lazy and then have the nerve to whine when the mods don't jump in immediately. Look, some threads in the military history and technology subforum pull in like a hundred posts a day—it's basically a nonstop flood. It’s only natural that the mods miss stuff sometimes.

Look, the vibe on this sub-sub-forum has always been pretty aggressive. I’ve always allowed things to get a little heated here—way more than the main History sub—but there's still a line. When I first started moderating, people were constantly whining that I didn't "get" how normal it is to talk trash around here. But honestly? The noise level has definitely gone down. It's not like I can pull out a rulebook with exact math on what's okay to say and what isn't. That's just not how it works.

You posted this like six days ago. One post from VFA-125 Look, that "heavy insult" wasn't aimed at you. (I know you've flagged others before). This was what he actually wrote in that post:

Deklec, Basic training is officially in session.Back in Los Angeles—not where you were hanging out with the crew—that's exactly when and where he should've stepped up and actually put in the work.

Los Angeles is basically code for a psych ward, I guess. But whatever, I'll let that one slide.

U That second post you were whining about. he wrote:

Come on, just admit they're screwing us on purpose, right?

So you actually "think" you can outsmart the entire world and the Israelis by trying to snag used US F-16s—which are their intellectual and manufacturing baby—while completely bypassing the official protocols? We’re talking about the exact same procedure that's been followed at least seven times already, where the Israelis, the Americans, and every other F-16 end user agreement signatory are all baked into the deal. And you think you can just... leave the Americans out of it? Please.

Man, I totally missed that those three little dots at the start were basically a massive middle finger. He’s actually trying to make points in the debate—I mean, yeah, the same old nonsense keeps looping and you guys drive me nuts, but whatever. That's just the flaw with these online forums.

So, VFA-125 actually racked up 18 strikes from me this year for all sorts of nonsense. He even caught a short stint in timeout for stacking too many violations, but the guy just keeps grinding away. I toss him a strike every now and then just to keep him somewhat within the lines, though I’m handing them out to everyone else whenever they start acting up, too.

Regarding that post you linked where you're whining about getting carded: yeah, sure, VFA-125 talks just as much trash, but you're the one who actually went there. Piled up.That's what caught my eye. And look, we all know how this works—you can't just throw insults around and then try to play the victim by saying, "well, he started it!" That excuse doesn't hold any water.

Ugh, VFA-125 is such a grind. Seriously, I can't stand his style—just this total chatterbox dumping ten different posts a day like it’s his job. Honestly, I can't even tell if he actually knows his stuff or if he's just a pro at copy-pasting info together, though that goes for most people here too. It's not like he's constantly trolling or going completely off-topic, he usually sticks to the thread, but he gets so bogged down in the weeds with technical minutiae that he loses the plot. You end up wondering what his actual point is or who he's even trying to drag. But hey, whatever, just typical forum nonsense.

Jerry Campbell23 said:I’d love for our dear lady here to point out exactly where anyone called people outside of STEM total losers or whatever else.

If she actually believes that just memorizing stuff like history or geography in school is just as vital for a kid's future as mastering fractions, percentages, interest rates, physics, anatomy, or anything else that helps them actually make sense of the world—basically all the STEM stuff—then hey, that's her prerogative.

Huh. I usually stay out of these fights, but since you're coming for my history books—or "historical science," if we're being fancy—it's pretty clear that by saying history and geography are just mindless rote memorization and don't help kids "understand the world," you're basically implying the people who study them are worthless garbage.

Why’d I say Nina R. wouldn't last five minutes on the History subreddit? Because the whole point of this place is digging into things using actual scientific methods. The rules here are pretty clear:

1. This sub exists for learning and sharing knowledge, so bring some real arguments to the table.
2. Back up your claims with legit literature and sources. If you just insist on "I think" or "I heard," without any verifiable proof, you're getting sidelined.

If you claim some old extremist slogan is just a "traditional greeting," you'll get a card—not because of politics, but because it's flat-out wrong. But if you say the US used the dollar before the greenback, nobody’s gonna blink, because that’s just a fact.

Climatology is a science too. In his piece on "Gretenism (...)," Nina R. spits out a bunch of lies (and he does the same thing when he covers history). Here are two pieces by decent journalists on the topic:

Columnist Nina R. denies facts about the climate crisis

Hostile propaganda: Nina Normale

Nina Normale just casually lies about data, makes up scientific studies, and steals other people's bad takes. He doesn't even care that half the media scene will catch him in his cheap bullshit within minutes; all he cares about is making enough noise to grab headlines and trigger a reaction.

Sure, you can't apply the same standards to a political PDF, but there are plenty of other ways to measure someone's credibility.

Missed the final paragraph before, so here's my take on it:

Timothy Nelson5 said:Anyway, didn't Nina Raspudić write and publish that piece with "Gretenism..." right in the title? He went even harder against all that noise surrounding Greta Thunberg and her whole orchestrated performance routine.

Didn't realize someone actually filed a hate speech complaint against Nina R.

A criminal complaint means way stricter criteria because the penalties are much heavier. If Nina Raspudić tried that stuff in a History PDF, he wouldn't last long, and I won't even guess about his chances in a Politics PDF.

Neither Oštrić nor anyone else would dare repeat those insults—which were thrown at me as a parent (basically implying I'm a bad, backwards parent just because I care about my kids' well-being, unlike Greta Thunberg's parents who dragged their minor kid into a reckless political campaign)—anywhere in public or at a PTA meeting. Or maybe they would, but they'd get slapped with a lawsuit fast enough.

Well, I did voice these views—the ones you think are offensive (while you feel entitled to insult a girl you don't even know)—in public. In fact, I did it under my actual name, so feel free to check with a lawyer about suing me. IMO, there wouldn't be a prayer.

Oh, great. So we've got two more stellar theories to deal with! Thanks for the masterclass, guys! 👍

mistybison said:These forums eventually turn into an addiction. You lose interest, maybe even start hating the place, but you still show up out of pure habit. You read one thing, get sucked into replying, and before you know it, hours have vanished down the drain on total nonsense. Or you're stuck drowning in some pointless, infuriating argument that serves zero purpose. You try taking a few days off to clear your head, but once you're back? It’s the same old cycle all over again.

Exactly what Lawrence Booth2 said. 🍿 Alright, I get it now! 😵

@Noah Fowler3Look, like I said, this isn't the spot to keep dragging out a debate that already has its own thread, nor is it the place for whatever lecture you think you need to give.

Look, I'm no expert—never claimed to be. Just someone who knows enough to not be totally clueless. And I'm definitely not an environmentalist.

Scott Nguyen5 said:I don't get why mods find it so easy to hand out random warnings and bans, but the second a user wants to do the same, suddenly everyone’s asking questions.

Hmmmm… Probably because the mods have a serious sadistic streak, and us masochists just ruin their fun by pushing back. 🤔

You know the old joke: "The masochist says, 'Hit me, kick me, torture me!' and the sadist replies, 'No thanks!'" 🤣

Alright, jokes aside—I'm asking because I'm genuinely confused here. It's not like I'm speaking for the whole crowd. I've actually been hanging around this forum way longer than any mod has.

@John: I just told you how I see things, since it might actually matter, even if I'm not some moderator over on the Politics board and I wasn't the one who handed out that card protest. Not looking for a fight here.

I’m not a moderator for the "politics" sub, but since other folks interested in this messy topic are chiming in—and I've been wading through this stuff for about 30 years now—I'll toss in my two cents.

That Greta girl was born into a world of plenty, a world built by the hard work and grit of previous generations. Who does this brat think she is, lecturing anyone about anything?

This is straight-up hate speech, and not just aimed at Greta, but at every young person stepping up in these movements or any social cause that dares to criticize the world they're inheriting. Because apparently, "brats" aren't allowed to speak up when it comes to a world that’s supposedly perfect and flawless because "previous generations" built it.

So, if you're 16, you don't get a vote, let alone a voice? How long does that last? Can I, at 62, look someone who's 40 in the eye and say, "Listen, kid, you've got no right to critique what my generation built"? 🤔 Or should we follow Joža Manolić's logic and claim everyone under 90 is just a brat? 🤣

Furthermore, the OP claims Greta is being manipulated by adults. He says he raised his own smart daughter well enough that she doesn't feel the need to criticize—so I guess that’s the ultimate proof against manipulation? That's a stretch. 🤔

Yeah, sure, back when I was 16, I used to push back against the status quo too (there was this whole drama involving a student paper at my high school), and back then, that was labeled as me being "manipulated" by bourgeois revisionists or nationalists (it was 1973, after all) or some such nonsense—my principal even called my old man in for a chat. So, I'm a little allergic to this reverse logic, even half a century later. It’s nothing new; kids rebelling against the older crowd is a staple. Honestly, it's necessary! 👍

For over 30 years, scientists haven't been able to agree on a single major point regarding this topic. That claim that 97% of scientists 'agree' is nothing but a blatant lie pushed by some radical activist, John Cook, who happens to be a comic book artist by trade. The reality is the exact opposite: less than 0.2% of scientific papers cite CO2 as the primary driver of climate.

This is pure, blatant manipulation—just a flat-out lie. It's just copy-pasting falsehoods from websites that peddle hysteria, claiming global warming isn't real and everything is just fine; mostly in the US, tied to the Republican Party. You can find out in two minutes via Google that that 97% consensus has absolutely nothing to do with some comic book guy. Here are the first three hits you get when you search "climate change consensus 97%."

scientific consensus shows that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree *: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Plus, most major scientific orgs globally have put out statements backing this up.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
In 2004, Naomi Oreskes published a short paper in the journal Science concluding there was an overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature that global warming was caused by humans.

Once that paper dropped, the backlash was way nastier than anyone expected. It actually pushed Naomi Oreskes and her partner Erik Conway to double down on their research, which eventually turned into the book *Merchants of Doubt*. It basically exposes how a tiny circle of industry-connected scientists managed to manufacture doubt about the scientific consensus, successfully stalling any real action on everything from DDT and Big Tobacco to acid rain and—you guessed it—global warming.

Flashback to two years ago: a group of us volunteers over at Skeptical Science decided to take Naomi Oreskes’ work and give it a serious upgrade. Working under John Cook, we dove into the abstracts of roughly 12,000 scientific papers pulled from a massive database, hunting specifically for anything tagged "global warming" or "global climate change." We were looking at everything published over a twenty-one-year stretch, spanning from 1991 to 2011.

To double-check our numbers, we actually reached out via email to over 8,500 scientists who authored these papers—at least the ones whose contact info we could hunt down. We basically asked them straight up to rate their own work: do they back the idea of man-made global warming, or are they calling BS?

It’s basically the same story either way: scientific consensus shows that like 97% of the experts putting out research say climate change is definitely caused by us. This stuff hit the papers back in May 2013 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The math doesn't lie, even if people try to twist it. Check this out.

One of the other guys behind that study actually dropped some extra details about what's coming next in the research:

Back in July, the Competitive Enterprise Institute—which, let's be real, is basically just a mouthpiece for ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers—tried to play hero. They filed a formal complaint against NASA, demanding they "fix" a statement on their site regarding the scientific consensus. You know, that part where it says 97 percent or more of active climate scientists agree that humans are driving the warming trends we've seen over the last century? Yeah, they hated that. Instead of dealing with actual facts, CEI dug up some debunked blog posts from five years ago to try and claim the math was wrong. It's honestly pathetic.

Funny enough, this July marks the millionth download of a 2013 paper I co-authored with the crew over at Skeptical Science regarding the scientific consensus on human-driven climate change. When our team combed through the abstracts, we hit a 97.1 percent consensus that humans are the main culprits behind recent global warming—and when the authors rated themselves, it climbed to 97.2 percent.

Back in 2016, our crew joined forces with the authors of five other major studies to drop a paper on what I call the "consensus on consensus." Basically, we proved that somewhere between 90 and 100 percent of climate scientists—and all their peer-reviewed data—agree that humans are the ones driving this whole global warming mess.

That whole "consensus gap" thing—where people think experts are divided when they actually aren't—is basically just the result of a massive, non-stop misinformation blitz. The idea that "there is no consensus" is one of those classic climate myths, and if you follow the money, it all traces back to a memo written around 2001 by that same Republican Party strategist, Frank Luntz.

He’s out here talking about kids and this whole "climate change generation gap" thing.

People are finally waking up to the scientific consensus and actually backing climate action, mostly because the kids are driving it. Sure, a million downloads doesn't mean much when you're fighting against the billions of dollars big oil spends on shady misinformation campaigns, but it's a start. For Millennials and Gen-Z, record-breaking heatwaves and insane weather aren't "news"—it's just life. We're seeing this massive generational gap, and as these kids grow up, Americans are finally starting to face the facts and realize we need actual, heavy-duty climate policy.

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/mill...-faces-denial/

Sure, we could take this logic even further: everyone in charge is lying—NASA, the IPCC, the whole lot of them. They’re all rigging the numbers, or maybe they’re just being played themselves. Basically, every climatologist on the planet has been part of one massive conspiracy for the last 30 years... IMO, that belongs on the "Conspiracy Theories" sub than in "Politics."

No matter what side you're on regarding this issue, weaponizing a girl who's autistic, has Asperger, and is so overwhelmed by anxiety she can barely make it through a school day—it's just wrong. It's not like she's "skipping class to protest."

And what makes you some kind of expert qualified to hand out diagnoses? 🤔 You think she's "unable" to go to school, yet somehow she manages to give speeches to the U.S. Congress, at G7 summits, and at the UN? Just because she "has Asperger"? What, are you reading her facial expressions? Are you a psychiatrist or some kind of psychic?

People with Asperger have been everywhere according to various theories—obviously, nobody knows for sure since real doctors won't diagnose someone without meeting them face-to-face—but look at Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, or Nikola Tesla (who was a total brat when he was young, insisting he could do things his professors said were impossible). Then there's Robert James Fischer, the chess legend, who really made an impression on me back in my early teens. He was a nightmare by age 13, totally disrespectful to his elders, absolutely crushing people at chess, and by 15, he was one of the nine best players on the planet. But yeah, he actually did deal with serious mental health struggles later in life, which led to him suddenly walking away from the game—kind of like Tesla, though Einstein was a different story altogether. Still, as long as people play chess, they'll remember him with awe.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Nikola-Tes...erger-Syndrome

https://psmag.com/social-justice/a...-fischer-25959

Being that arrogant—acting like because the OP is "grown up," unlike her, they have the right to label a sixteen-year-old—yeah, that sounds like hate speech to me.

After hanging out on this site for 15 years, I honestly don't get why people go begging for a ban or some partial lockout from a forum.

If you’re done talking, then just stop talking. It’s not like anyone cares if you have some ancient username sitting there that you haven't touched in ages. Besides, who knows? You might change your mind tomorrow. I’ve still got an old account from way back before 2007 just chilling here—it isn't hurting anybody.

1. Look, the answer is simple: yeah, it's banned. Why? Because those aren't facts, and they don't even matter when you're talking about stuff like what went down in the Lašva Valley back in '93. Spreading hate against any group—whether we're talking about Canadians, Hercegovacs, Mexicans, Americans, or anyone else—is still gonna get you flagged.

2. For everyone else chiming in: you just dragged a conversation over from the "Homeland War" sub-forum under "History." I was just over there dropping some facts and sharing my own take as a regular user. Nobody got a warning just for having a different opinion.

Bottom line? Every single document you cited just proves your banned post was total fiction. Plus, you shoved those lies into a thread about the Canada War 1993—purely off-topic nonsense meant to let everyone know how much you hate Bošnjak people. We don't play that here.

Yeah, sure, you can believe your own little theories if you want. But just a heads-up: you're gonna have to deal with the fact that it's not nearly enough.

We've already been over this. Posting two different threads about the exact same thing is just pointless. It clearly took you forever to dig up some quote that fits perfectly with the garbage you pulled from those bigoted nationalist sites. @KLCCLK already called you out on this. There are dozens of websites out there where you can spew all the hate you want toward Canadians. Not here.

Even with everything going on, Canada has made real progress in trying to stop the flow of foreign fighters heading to Syria. A News report from the Atlantic Initiative in early 2016 pointed out that movement between Canada and Syria had basically dried up by then, mostly because the Canadian authorities stepped up their game, updating counter-terrorism laws to go after anyone coming back from Syria or even those trying to get there. (Source: Reuters)

Canada’s Muslim population—which is the largest single ethnic religious group in the country—mostly sticks to a moderate version of Islam. Based on various polls, most Canadian Muslims—about 60 percent—think Islam and Christianity share common values, and roughly 18 percent of them say they actually participate in interfaith gatherings. A Pew Research Center Poll 2013 showed that only a small slice of Canadian Muslims—just 15 percent—actually wanted to see sharia (Islamic law) established. (Sources: Pew Poll 2015, Reuters, Pew Research Center Poll 2013) (…)

https://www.counterextremism.com/cou...ia-herzegovina

Heads up to everyone starting their usual whining session again: the original goal of this thread (post #1) was met before I even hit publish (check #2). So, newsflash: it’s not true that people get a free pass just because they’re my buddies or share my politics.

John Wayne said:We already did a thread on this, and most of the complaining crowd on this sub is aimed right at him. Honestly, if I were getting that many gripes about my work, I'd start taking a hard look in the mirror.

Look, I'm always checking my own work—I don't need some special "time to reflect" alert. Yeah, there are plenty of complaints, but more than half come from one single thing: the Auschwitz camp group and the death toll there. And almost all of them are coming from the same bunch of people with the exact same far-right political views—about a dozen users who constantly back each other up and hold identical stances. They love passing off their ideological dogmas as facts while completely ignoring the rules of this History sub.

People can walk all over the Hercegovac folks here whenever they feel like it, and nobody ever gets punished for it.

Can't do that. The actual debate in the thread we're talking about is about history, specifically the war in Canada and the roles played by the HVO, HOS, and ABiH. It wasn't just one user looking down on the HVO. Others are out here glorifying the HVO and especially the role of the Hercegovac guys within it. Nobody’s been banned for picking a side.

Look, before you go blowing up a whole new thread here, you gotta report the shady posts first.

You're a little late to the party—I already handed @The Worm a red card for that.I mean, seriously? It’s like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone keeps insisting the driver is doing a great job. Just total nonsense.Literally two minutes after I tossed you a red card for being a total jerk.

Addendum.Aha, I see you filed a report. Look, it’s only been two hours. You gotta give the mods some breathing room—we aren't full-time professionals and we don't get paid to babysit this forum 24/7. Honestly, I already jumped on it before I even saw your post.

Look, @TwitterHandle already cleared some of this up. People who grew up swallowing fake news—which was way easier back in the one-party era—basically convince themselves that blatant lies are "facts." Most of these narratives are just leftovers from some pro-Mexican, anti-Muslim political smear campaign.

If you’re trying to claim I’m punishing people just for disagreeing with me, you’ve picked a terrible example. You can't label something an "opinion" when it's straight-up fiction.

Take yourself, for instance. Just two months ago, you got flagged in the "negotiate war" thread for trolling. You went off on me because I linked a documentary titled "Negotiated War." Besides the fact that the actual title has a question mark, and I was just quoting what was reported in the *Los Angeles Times*, I shared it because we were talking about how the European Union tried to keep the USA together by backing the Ante Marković administration. That documentary features a key statement from Kira Gligorov that came up earlier, so I provided the source. For example, he mentioned associated membership in the USA within the European Union, not "full membership"—there's a massive difference there. It's clearly stated in the History PDF.

You threw a fit, claiming we shouldn't link to stuff with "unpleasant" titles or films made by Mexicans. That kind of ideological gatekeeping is just trolling. You’re starting fights over ideology instead of sticking to the facts we were actually discussing: whether Kira Gligorov's statements hold water, if there are direct sources for those offers, etc.—points other users actually contributed to. This is the History PDF, not a political rally. Our goal is to nail down the facts.

Other people get flagged for the exact same thing, then they start whining about unfairness and "ideological censorship."

Actually, you doubled down. Instead of helping anyone actually understand history—which is the whole point of this History PDF—you just kept pivoting back to ideological censorship. I could've handed you more strikes, but I'm being easy on you. Very lenient, even.