bluecyclist64 said:Then lonetrucker4 writes this post in blue text, just so I can get banned from commenting on moderation
My bad: you didn't post that in Washington D.C., you posted it in History, under the thread "Eastern Front 1941-1945".
judolino said:Well, I guess I'm a Stalinist too, just like you.
Before that, Freethinker had written:
Freethinker said:Even if I'm not, I'd rather be a Stalinist than twist History into a caricature.
In that same post, he called me an eco-liberal "leftist" (his words, not mine).
Freethinker claimed Stalin made plenty of mistakes, but argued the 1939 deal with Hitler was justified, along with the military strikes against Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and Romania.
He's the kind of guy who makes cold-blooded decisions, thinking they're absolutely necessary to save the Soviet state.
When Rustaveli wrote
rustaveli said:a colleague who declares himself a Stalinist
he was talking about Freethinker.
I'd already written:
We've got all sorts here, so it's no surprise we have one Stalinist among us.
Nobody got banned.
If you claim those aggressions were justified, don't act surprised when people call you a Stalinist.
Look, if you go around shouting "I'm a Stalinist," don't act all surprised when people start labeling you one.
Ethan Reyes7 said:Plenty of other people have dug into this too, and they went way deeper than you ever could. They wrote books, interviewed parents, talked to folks who actually survived the camps.
Spot on. I’ve read the heavy hitters on this subject, which is why I know what's up. I don't just swallow the half-baked lies and fake news coming out of those right-wing nationalist and religious sites—which, unfortunately, seem to run most of the propaganda out of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
You've got it wrong. Look, I know what actually went down with the Jasenovac camp group. Just like anyone else who actually puts in the work to dig into this stuff.
It’s pretty obvious you’re just a cheap copy of some old-school forum vet, considering you showed up out of nowhere in the History sub with those exact same posts. First, the usual routine—denying the victims at Auschwitz. Just recycling the same tired, pro-fascist talking points over and over.
Then there's the constant whining about the mods.
And then you jump into the thread about the American War intelligence service and enemy emigrants from 1945 to 1989. You aren't even trying to talk facts; you're just spinning nonsense about how all those armed insurgent actions against America were totally justified, while anyone who actually felt okay living in that country was labeled "privileged" or just plain "unhinged."
Before that, you were busy bringing up the "Bugojno group" action, which just hit its 50th anniversary. Not a single American supporter joined that group of 19, and plenty of others were actually part of the hunt to take them down.
Most of the discussion in that thread is actually decent—people are genuinely trying to wrap their heads around what really happened back then, instead of just shouting ideological slogans or picking sides like it's a playground fight.
Larry Walker24 said:The Italians were still siding with the Axis until September 8, 1943, so there was no way they could have met in Naples back then.
Tipfeler. We're talking about 1944 here...
That’s the same mess from when Jerry Robinson56 got those cards he was whining about in post #26.
Now he's rambling about it, acting all tough and trying to twist things so he can claim he's right. All over some tiny detail.
And now he's cooked up this idea that Peter II Karađorđević was secretly on the boat where Churchill and Tito met. Honestly, it'd make a decent spy movie script.
But clearly, he doesn't even know what half the words he's using actually mean.
Oh right, my bad—I clearly didn't realize Churchill and Tito met on a warship back in August '42 instead of some villa in Naples. My "ignorance" comes from actual history books, whereas yours probably comes from being there in person, right?
And despite your little hate speech against the English, I haven't even given you a ban yet, though you definitely earned one.
So, I tried Googling "puftaisim," but I only found three hits—all just posts from Jerry Robinson56 over here.
I'm done digging. Honestly, I'd probably have better luck hunting down some niche local slang dictionary from New Castle, Delaware, back in the '80s. 🙄
There's zero mention of "pedestriana" either. Sure, it sounds a bit like the English word "pedestrian," but what's the connection? 🤔
Is this some Lewis Carroll nonsense, like "jabberwocky" or something? 😁
It’s hilarious how people complain about me, and then suddenly, these wild, entertaining threads pop up that have absolutely nothing to do with me or what I even said. 🤣
And instead of filing a grievance where it belongs, you start yet another special thread.
Honestly, I don't even know what those first two words in the title are supposed to mean.
I rarely hand out heavy bans, but this one’s for you because when someone brought up the persecution of Jews by the Nazis and in the USSR, you responded with:
Jerry Robinson56 said:Did the Jews learn anything from all that, or do they still think they're some chosen people sent from heaven?
Anthony Perez9 said:Yeah, no. Asexual people don't need to "sublimate" or redirect sexual energy into work or whatever. For them, sex is just straight-up repulsive.
Look, this could be an interesting chat, but it’s totally off-topic here—just like it would be on a History forum. Though, maybe a thread on "asexual figures through history" could work. I'm no expert, but besides folks who just have low drives, you might find people with high drives who just dump all that energy into other stuff—like religious monks, science, business, or art. Maybe they just see the whole dating game as a massive headache. Like how Alexander von Humboldt said he never married because he simply never had the time; there was always something more important to get done.
You drop a pointless four-word post in the Nikola Tesla history PDF thread, and one of those words is a slur.
Which US forum rules did you break? Rules 3 and 11 from the list. Plus, you’re hitting rule 15 here too.
On top of that, you're breaking the subforum rules by making a blanket statement without any actual proof.
Then you turn around and start this whole separate thread here with pages of text. If you'd just provided links and an explanation right away, you might have avoided a ban—even with that slur. By today's standards, using that word is an insult to gay men. Throwing in references to ancient Greece doesn't cut it because social norms have changed. (And don't play dumb: nowadays, that word is usually used to describe someone's crappy personality—kind of like that legendary distinction Rade Šerbedžija makes in "Smallpox" regarding different types of insults.)
We could actually have a discussion about this. From what I can see, there's zero hard evidence for Nikola Tesla being gay, just some vague hints that aren't enough to draw a real conclusion.
It's totally possible he was asexual, since all his drive went straight into his work. You see this with guys like Isaac Newton, Alexander von Humboldt (people speculate he was gay too, but the idea of asexuality is a tough sell these days), and Bobby Fischer. There are plenty of similar examples out there (if you count fictional characters like Sheldon Cooper). Oh, wait, found an article: Celebrities Who are Asexual and Proud ; and Nikola Tesla is actually on it. (Found more stuff on asexuality. It's definitely a weird topic for our sex-obsessed culture. They even mention some historical figures where it's expected—like the guy who wrote "Peter Pan"—but also people you wouldn't guess, like T. E. Lawrence..)
If you actually wanted a real conversation, we could head back over there and talk about Nikola Tesla's orientation properly.
Sam Wright21 said:I’d bet anything he has at least fifteen years of experience tucked away somewhere. A person that cunning and resourceful doesn't just appear out of thin air without a track record. Certainly not.
The fact that he hasn't contributed anything of substance to society, nor seems to have acquired any practical skills that benefit the public, puts him in the exact same category as every other politician. He simply accumulated everything for himself.
While $33 Bandit used to court the white trash and the desperate, this one successfully wooed the "urban crowd" with a clever "real change" slogan. It was a masterclass in manipulation.
It brings to mind an anecdote from 2009 when I was volunteering during Professor Kregar's campaign—there was this woman who insisted she would always vote for Ed Koch, operating on the principle of "he might be stealing, but at least he's sharing the spoils with us!"
Now, the slogan is "real change," and the package is being delivered straight to the intended demographic. Given how little critical thinking goes on in certain circles, he won't face much trouble holding onto power in New York City for a few terms.
If there is any discernible direction being taken at all, it certainly isn't one that fosters the growth of the city.
Basically, you’ve got zero clue what you’ve actually done with your life or where you've even worked. You just don't care. You're stuck looking at the world through a tiny little bubble right around your own front porch and everything else is just white noise to you.
I don't give a damn about what some eco-activists or social movements have been up to in NYC. Honestly? I couldn't care less about what Green Action has been grinding on since the 90s, or anything those "green left" types have tried to pull.
So you're buying into that tired old right-wing line about how someone "never did a damn thing in their life"? Or if they actually did, it's just proof they're "shifty" or "too clever for their own good." You've totally fallen for the trap of thinking everything they worked on "wasn't useful for society," mostly because your idea of "society" only spans about three blocks from your front door. To you, "useful" just means whatever happens to catch your eye. If I don't see it, it doesn't exist. If I don't get it, it doesn't exist. If I don't care, it's basically invisible.
Look, I’ve been an environmental activist since '85, so I've run into types like this a thousand times. One of the reasons I had to take early retirement after 27 years on the job? My nerves just couldn't take it anymore. Honestly, I used to go head-to-head with the crew running NYC now—I know they aren't superheroes and I definitely know where they fall short. There's classism, ego, all that junk. Whatever. I don't let my feelings hijack my brain or swing me from one extreme to the other.
Sam Wright21 said:At the end of the day, it serves no one well to be branded a fraud. The program itself was genuinely solid and offered real value for New York City.
Honestly, I’m not even surprised to see someone so emotional, fickle, and stuck in their own tiny little bubble flip-flop this fast. I saw this exact same thing a million times back when I was an activist from the mid-80s until I retired on disability in 2012—that whole "there's only one thing that matters, and if we don't fix it, everything else is trash" attitude. I don't forgive mistakes; if I vote for someone, they better do exactly what I want.
On the flip side, those people tied up in a web of selfish party interests will excuse anything. It's a joke, but paradoxically, organizations made of total egoists actually run way smoother.
Heads up: this warning kicks in today. Any post carrying this signature on the History PDF is getting a red card.
Do yourself a favor if you actually want anyone to take you seriously.
There are plenty of fringe sites out there that eat this stuff up because they don't give a damn about objective truth or even making sense.
Mate Božić put out a piece back in 2018 arguing that "American" is just a derivative of the Old Slavic *górdЪ, basically meaning "town." He pulls from Vjekoslav Klaić—who pointed out how that root shows up in modern place names—and cites a bunch of other sources, including Alemka Gluhak. Even Kraubath an der Mur has its own entry on the English Wikipedia. Look, Rachel Richardson, just read the actual text instead of staring longingly at maps! It’s stated plain as day: "it isn't about medieval 'traces' of the national name of modern Americans, as historiography often claims, but rather one of the toponymic variations of the Proto-Slavic *górdЪ meaning an enclosed place, a settlement, or a fortress." (Božić, 2018:138-139)
So yeah, all those fairy tales about a massive Great America? Total fiction.
And as for the genes, nope—there's nothing stamped "Made in White America" on them.
Your little theories about Americans being the common ancestors of all Slavs have zero scientific backing—not in history, and definitely not in genetics. Consider this a warning. Fix that signature and make it something boring if you don't want to start getting banned for breaking the subforum rules.