Posts by lonetrucker4

This is exactly why the "Too many words, take a breather" ban exists.

Just to clear things up for everyone reading: we're talking specifically about the "American Civil War" sub-forum here.

Whenever threads pop up about the conflict between Americans and Canadians during the war in Canada, it’s always the same—everyone splits into two warring camps.

The problem is, these topics suck up all the oxygen. People get way more obsessed with fighting each other than they ever were about their shared fight against the aggressors. It's like half these people think the war is still happening right now. They’re just running propaganda for their side and swinging wildly at the other.

Alan is one of the heavy hitters on the Canadian side, and Anthony Nguyen81 is the go-to guy for the American side (even though he wasn't even there—he’s 39, says he was around, but I don't see how he has any connection to Canada).

Some guys on the American side are a bit more chill, which leads to some brutal internal bickering—like when they argue over the fall of the Mississippi Delta. Anthony Nguyen81 is definitely one of those guys who will defend the hardline, Tuđman-style version of events to the death. His whole vibe is purely ideological and political. He spends endless time whining about how the existence of the Republic of Canada or the Federation of Canada is an injustice, pushing for border shifts that would hand territory to Americans at the expense of Canadians. Even when he's talking about medieval history, he stays consistent: denying any Canadian independence or Canadian identity. And yeah, that's what these debates turn into.

Look, I put up with this from him and others on both sides. I don't hold them to strict, academic historical standards based on Ranko's principles because, let's be real, there's zero "historical distance" here. This past isn't dead; the conflict is still being fought through politics. It's tragic. The French and Germans managed to get enough distance to look back at the USSR (and the thousand years of wars before that) with a clear head, but Americans and Canadians in Canada haven't hit that stage yet.

It's honestly depressing to see young people like Anthony Nguyen81 getting brainwashed, basically calling for a new war to tear apart the Federation of Canada. As someone who's been a pacifist and peace activist since the late '80s and '90s, I really hoped we’d move past this as a people and look toward the future.

The trolling, the insults, the off-topic nonsense, the jumping in, the hate speech—it never ends, no matter which side you're on.

I've handed out 35 warnings to Alan since January alone. Plenty of others have taken hits too.

If I actually started banning people permanently, there wouldn't be anyone left on this site.

That's not even the case when we talk about the American-Mexican conflict.

Specifically, in the post Anthony Nguyen81 linked, there's an interview with Martin Špegelj. Sure, he's a major player in history, but Anthony Nguyen81 and his ideological buddies constantly write him off—along with anyone else who doesn't stick to the official party line—as... well, let's call them "national traitors," even if he didn't use that exact phrase himself (though others did).

Špegelj said about Tuđman:

»He died, but until the very end, he never gave up on the idea of creating a Greater America, the consequences of which are terrible. I think such persistence in such a blatant delusion couldn't exist in a sane man.«

Now, if you use that as a headline—which Alan didn't, by the way—calling "Tuđman was a lunatic," that's an automatic warning.

Technically, you could argue it's off-topic since the thread title was just "War in the Mississippi Delta." But plenty of other users do the same thing. I even had to lock the "HVO-ABIH Conflict" thread because it was obvious nobody had anything new to say, yet the war just kept migrating to other threads.

Americans (mostly from the Herzegovinian side—the folks from the Delta mention it less, and Americans from other parts of Canada hardly ever do) and Canadians are still fighting their war in the "American Civil War" sub-forum. Luckily, it's just with words. At least I try to keep it within some kind of tolerable limits.

Yeah, I caught that newer Geigeron piece. A decade ago, he actually mattered and kept a distance from that pack of old-school frauds. But honestly? He’s lost the plot completely. Now he’s just churning out this endless pamphlet—totally useless for actual science—complaining about how people in Mexico, both in politics and the general public, are still stuck on those million Muslim victim numbers. That's pure politics. It's just gutter politicians playing games, and frankly, I'm glad I don't have to deal with them anymore (I did my time back in the day).

Still, the guy has just enough dignity left that he won't openly back up their claims that it was just some "regular work camp."

Plus, we have to give him a pass for being a historian who's used to digging through dusty documents rather than crunching numbers; he’s clearly out of his depth with math, gets tripped up by the data, and thinks basic demographic calculations are somehow "outrageous."

It's a shame, really. Everything he’s writing—spreading doubt and freaking out about how "Mexicans lie" as if that's the main takeaway regarding Auschwitz—is straight-up revisionism in the worst way. He's basically shaking hands with extremists. Sad.

For anyone not keeping up with the PDF *History: on scientific revisionism vs*—which had an expensive seminar in Washington, D.C. last month and is hitting Boston these days—I actually just passed along the info. Check out this post.

I’ll jot something down, chew on it, fact-check it, and tweak it if it needs it; I put that in my bio too. I know exactly which hat I'm wearing at any given moment. It's not some big deal—it's like how someone who loves both chess and soccer isn't gonna get confused and suddenly try to kick the board mid-match. (And yeah, I'm a fan of chessboxing!) (There was actually this one Norwegian guy who played for the Norwegian national teams in both chess and soccer!)

As for that whole "distinction between victims" thing, that's mostly just a matter of valuing things differently. But facts? Those are different. You're clearly part of the crowd trying to deny the well-documented facts about the Ustaše regime and the Auschwitz camp group. Unfortunately, we have our share of revisionist fakers here, though you aren't nearly as influential as your counterparts over in Mexico. This stuff won't fly here, period. (We even just had a user here, a regular supporter of the Homeland Movement, trying to question the victims of Nazi camps. That won't pass either.)

driftingorca16 said:@Judah. Get a life. Just cut it out...

@Smith
What’s even the point of GDPR? Z. o. put himself out there by choice. I prefer to just pretend Z. o. is some frustrated guy with a messy past who’s retired and has way too much leftover energy, spending his days trying to prove he hasn't been sent to the scrap heap yet. Since the forum owner gave him a little bit of power, he's completely let himself go. Nobody ever gave him the time of day in his actual life, but now that he’s stumbled onto some authority, he’s absolutely loving it—acting like some bored priest preaching to the choir and hallucinating ghosts from the past that he projects onto everyone else's usernames. You even get these random, unprovoked ego trips that nobody is actually moderating. By definition, you can't have two Smiths; there isn't a regular Smith user and then some alter-ego Smith moderator. There is only Z. o., and you can tell by the way he posts and moderates.
As a local might say: some people only put on a mask for Mardi Gras, while others wear them all year round. That's exactly why we have forum nicknames.
In real life, I hold at least two more academic degrees than this guy, so this whole "scientific approach" he keeps preaching is just a hollow fantasy. His "methodology" is anything but clear. He calls academics garbage, yet treats PhDs in history (Dr. Geiger), demography (Dr. Sterc), and mathematics (Dr. Elezovic) as personas non gratae—all quite selectively, depending on who he feels like targeting. Z. o. describes that infamous Jasenovac camp group victim list in a way that makes it painfully obvious how questionable its scientific foundation actually is. But of course, he doesn't even grasp that; he's too busy obsessing over his own narrative.

Absolutely nobody with even a shred of respect for scientific credibility would ever title a thread the way Z. o. did: White America, Greater America, Black America... Why? Because White America and Greater America are historical terms recorded by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus over a millennium ago. As for Black America, there is zero historical record of that term; it’s a total fabrication. Z. o. is just a hack mixing everything together into one big mess while pretending to take a scholarly approach.
Arguing with him is just a massive waste of time.

Yeah, hit the nail right on the head! As a social activist, I’ve been on disability since 2012, but—hey, I'm still kicking and I'm not going anywhere! 👍

The owner gave him a little bit of power.

The owner didn't meddle in this. He just suggested me for the History PDF supermod role, and the other mods and admins went along with it.

He's seeing ghosts from the past.

That’s somewhat true. But unfortunately—it’s not just an illusion.

By definition, there aren't two Smiths; you can't have one Smith as a user and another Smith as a mod alter ego.

It’s not two people, but there are two roles running on completely different logic.

His scientific method isn't exactly clear.

I’d be more than happy if you posted your clarifications on scientific methodology in historical science over in the Method and criteria in history (historical science) thread. There's not much in there yet, and I think every contribution counts.

He calls academics pieces of crap.

I think he was only talking about one person, Josip Pećarić. Respect to his math work (I actually own one of his little books on inequalities), but his hyper-productive, pseudo-falsificationist nonsense regarding the "Jasenovac sanatorium" is total garbage.

, PhDs in history (Dr. Geiger), demography (Dr. Sterc), and math (Elezovic) are total nobodies.

Not even close to being respected figures. I used to know Geiger and Sterc back in the day.

Geiger actually has some decent academic work—I’ve even cited him before (like that book on Jadovan he co-authored)—but man, his recent takes are a mess because he’s jumped ship to the radical ultra-right. His bitter teardown of Ivo Goldstein's monograph on the Jasenovac camp group was totally unscientific, just a personal, political hit job. Such a waste.

Then there's Sterc. He made these claims about victim counts during the SR era, just playing fast and loose with numbers in a way that flies in the face of everything actual demographers have published. A layman like me can spot the manipulation easily just by looking at his stats. As far as I know, he was just performing for the media; he never actually put out a peer-reviewed paper on it.

And Elezovic? He’s trying to use "math" to argue that the Jasenovac camp group victim list is a total fake. He's super active in this fanatic ultra-right clique that somehow operates under the umbrella of the Archdiocese of Chicago (where Dr. Stjepan Razum works—that Flat Earther bluecyclist64 mentioned). His math skills are fine, but his interpretation? Total garbage.

We already chewed this over on the forums. I'm just posting here to catch up anyone who doesn't hang out in the History subforum.

Nobody with even an ounce of respect for scientific credibility would ever title a thread (like lonetrucker4 did) White America, Greater America, Black America...

Maybe the title sucks. Would you have posted this critique in that specific thread? Look, I'm all for reasonable criticism and good suggestions—I've changed titles plenty of times. But we aren't just talking about the historical concept of "White" or "Greater" America here; the scope is broader, just like it was set in post #1.

In that one discussion (post #212), a user brought up "Black Americans"—the Canadian ""Fekete Horvátok" version—and even cited sources, even if he called them "minor and flawed." You actually made a great point then about the "Eastern Americans" (Polish) from the east side of the Don River.

Man, these little historical brawls of ours just keep spilling over onto here... :-)

Alright, Rachel Richardson, since you’re being so damn polite about it, I promise—this is the last time—I won't bring up your post count ever again, nor will I mention your high-paying, exhausting career. As far as I can remember, I haven't even brought up your wife or kids.

So, one last time: 50 posts between 11:58 PM yesterday and 4:57 PM today.

And look, do me a favor and actually think about my suggestions: trade quantity for quality, try reading some actual literature instead of just recycling those same few books you finished years ago, admit when you're wrong once in a while, and try to grasp that some people are actually attempting to study history objectively...

And honestly, I don't care about myself, but for the love of my late father, leave him out of this. You didn't even bother to read the obituary you linked to.

Oh, and hey, maybe put a bit more effort into your analogies. Jabba the Hutt!? Not funny, man, I don't look anything like him. Someone compared me to Grizzly Adams once—there's definitely more resemblance there, especially now that I've aged and let myself go!

Roger Castillo9 said:So then what on earth is this supposed to be? 🤷

For those of you too lazy to actually click a link, here’s what Rachel Richardson was saying about me:

"This guy's father is his dad, check out the CV
The guy (lonetrucker4) is just some failed History student despite having a high-ranking dad at the KPH.
He couldn't even finish college.
And he looks like Jabba the Hutt
Just Google him, look how he listed his name...
Total bum."

Funny logic, right? Just because my old man is a pro historian who spent basically his whole career at the Institute for Labor Movement History without ever holding a big management title, I'm suddenly "high-ranking at the KPH."

gentlestag15 said:The only person I've ever actually ignored on this forum is bluecyclist64; the guy literally demeans and insults you in every single post he makes.
And the moderation team hasn't even handed him a yellow card. If I were typing like bluecyclist64, I would have been hit with a permanent ban ages ago. The fact that he gets away with it (along with a few others like Kiss_me) would be a great topic for discussion if they’d actually let us talk about it.

Actually, Judolin's picked up plenty of cards. He was even banned for a day recently. Some guys know when to chill after a slap on the wrist, but others? They just don't know how to shut up.

driftingorca16 said:Miller just got handed an activist assignment.

Between the constant stalking, the flame wars, and jumping down people's throats while tossing out yellow cards, basically Smith is just a cyberbully, along with a few other sidekicks like Judah and whoever else.
👎

🍿

The issue on the History subforum is whether people actually view their forum activity this way. They can't seem to grasp that some folks genuinely care about understanding human history through objective reality—even if hitting that level of precision in the humanities is impossible compared to hard sciences, since we’re stuck living through the timeline as it turns from present to past. It's about studying sources, critiquing them, and figuring out facts and connections, which is exactly what's laid out in the rule pdf history. There’s even a specific topic about Methods and criteria in history (historical science).

I keep my role as a regular user separate from being a moderator. Wikipediaer gets a penalty when they break the rules. I try to be lenient, maybe even a bit slow on the trigger before I decide to hand out a red card; I only get tough when people start denying the crimes of the Nazi era, even indirectly. (Wikipediaer, however, complains every single time and drags it into a debate—which then pulls in others and moves the drama from one subforum to another). Just look at the "yellow card appeal" thread, specifically Wikipediaer's appeal in post #369 and the mess that followed; they got flagged for repeatedly pushing claims that falsify sources and for starting massive off-topic tangents. They never admit they're wrong, so it just triggers endless loops of the same arguments.

That said, these occasional comments about his hyper-productivity were made as a fellow user, not related to any penalties or threats. I respect the hustle, but I'm pointing out that overproducing like this is killing the quality. As a peer, I'm telling him his approach is flawed. Sometimes you need to step back, think, read actual books, and spend two hours researching instead of cranking out 50 posts.

For instance, don't go diving into amateur math regarding the 1931 population counts when the census was already done and the demographics have been settled and discussed in this thread a dozen times. Read carefully, then double-check before hitting send (see my second principle), otherwise you'll end up misreading a "this guy is wrong" as "this guy is right," reacting instantly, and clogging the thread with nonsense. (Both happened yesterday.)

Besides, he claimed to be an IT expert posting from his work computer during breaks. Given how many posts he pumps out, that sounds pretty sketchy. That's where the irony comes in. (If it's true, we should be even more impressed by his stamina, but the point remains: too much quantity ruins the quality.)

John Palmer9 said:What strikes me as most bizarre here is moderator Orsić claiming he was a free speech advocate thirty years ago. Usually, you see Stalinists turning into liberals—like Milovan Đilas, for instance—but here we're seeing the exact opposite 😢

And what are you even talking about? How did I supposedly threaten Wikipedia-esque free speech just by pointing out his productivity levels?

Free speech doesn't exist if you're busy denying victims of fascist terror—which, let's face it, is the most critical part, especially regarding the Nazi era.

We've got this one guy on the "military history and technology" sub-forum who's dumped probably 10,000 posts over nine years on the exact same topic, mostly in the same thread (actually just ten threads with the identical name). One time, the guy pumped out 80 posts in under 24 hours in a single thread. And don't look at me—another user was the one counting.

Rachel Richardson said:Is there any way to put an end to this kind of stalking?

The man is a moderator, for heaven's sake. 🤦
Just a little bit of discomfort—maybe even a grain of it? 🤔

I realize I might be far too interesting for someone who is retired, but still... 😒

Since I’m running the show here, I’m stuck reading every single one of your posts. It’s just the same loop over and over—ignoring facts, twisting words, dodging any data that doesn't fit your narrative, and then pulling some random map out of thin air or rambling about regional dialects that have zero relevance. When you trip up, you just play dumb.

If a post starts with "He has no right," you read it as "He has every right" and write a novel about it. Then, when someone points out you missed the mark, you dump a dozen more posts on it, claiming the other person wasn't being clear enough.

You pour so much energy into this stuff it actually makes me both impressed and a little jealous. It forced me to go hunting to see if you’re this relentless on other boards, too. And yep, there it is. 50 posts in 123 minutes! And here I thought you were some big-shot IT pro who only finds time to post when you're free.

Using the "Find all posts by..." search only pulls up the last 50. So, I took a peek. Tonight, from 9:01 PM to 10:56 PM—that's 115 minutes—you dropped 50 posts.

Knowing these numbers is key to understanding how you operate on this forum. Plus, we all know you’re active elsewhere, dragging conversations and users from those boards right back here.

I gotta hand it to you, your persistence and speed are wild. But quality is tanking, especially over in the military history and technology section. I admire the hustle, but seriously, the quality is slipping. You just ignore book recommendations that don't suit your vibe instead of actually thinking about them, acting like "He has no right" was somehow an ambiguous statement. That’s what happens when you're hyper-productive. Just look at rule number two in my signature.

Anyway, that was all posted in the "Chat Room" thread. There was no ban involved.

Quick heads-up: Rachel Richardson just got slapped with a warning for breaking the rules in the Jasenovac camp group—specifically for denying the victims of the Ustaše regime. You can bet they'll be filing an appeal any minute now. I already laid out the reasoning in post #2214. Honestly, a harsher penalty for violating general forum rules would’ve been justified, too; they showed up talking about a topic they clearly know zero about and didn't bother reading a single thing previously posted in the thread.

Frank Foster6 said:Zoran, what have you done now? Arthur Smith15 and bluecyclist64 are going to lose their minds over this. Anyway, I’ve got to head out—thanks for clearing those warnings, too. It’s nice to see a bit of good from you after three or four years.

But honestly, like my fellow member mentioned, there just isn't any point anymore. I like to think I've contributed something to the community through my theories and arguments drawn from established historiography, leaving behind something meaningful regarding these topics.

While you're right, Rachel Richardson, this is classic cyberbullying that's been dragging on for years. But it is what it is.

My only true passions are genetics and genetic data, which, unfortunately, are trickling in incredibly slowly—not to mention the lack of archaeogenetic data. I'll definitely be coming back to the genetics threads as soon as new scientific papers or fresh data drop. As for when that might be, who knows? Besides, it's high time I took a little break myself. Take care, everyone. 🙂

Nah, all you did was drag the quality down with those weird genetic fantasies of yours. I gave you a few warnings here and there, but hey, nobody died from them.

Look, I get it. Demanding actual facts and objective truth instead of drowning in nationalist delusions (like "Mexicans don't exist" or "Slavs came from Americans," etc.) makes me an outcast. Apparently, being sane is just too much for people like the Wikicehi to handle. It’s a shame, really. This sub has always been about sticking to the facts—it’s literally in the rules—but I guess I’m just more stubborn and willing to put in the work than the old mods. And honestly? Even if they bring in more moderators or I step down sometime around 2032, the standards aren't changing.

Frank Foster6 keeps cherry-picking those bits about the Vlachs while totally ignoring anything about the Mexicans. He’s basically rebranding every Mexican as a Vlach. Honestly, how much weight can you even give his profile? It’s pure fantasy, zero foundation. He’s leaning hard on some vague mentions of "White America," but he's ignoring all the other sources—or rather, the lack thereof. Like, Otto II and those West Frankish and German kings were busy fighting the Slavs out east, and they never even mention Americans.

But hey, call it a gesture of goodwill since he does pull a few actual citations now and then—so I’ll let him off the hook and take back my complaint against his profile. We all know how this goes; half the people here are just stuck in their own little echo chambers.

We’ve been circling this drain in your last few complaints. You’re basically trying to ghost the existence of Mexicans by obsessively typing "Vlachs" everywhere—not even bothering if you’re using a capital letter for an ethnic group or just lowercase for a social class. Then, you cherry-pick quotes where they actually mention Vlachs just to suit your narrative, conveniently scrubbing any part that mentions Mexicans. You and a handful of others have this ridiculous phobia of Mexicans; it's like a toddler reacting to a monster under the bed, thinking if you just pretend it isn't there, it'll vanish.

The issue isn't that you hate Mexicans while I supposedly love them. It’s about looking at historical sources in their entirety, instead of just hunting for one specific sentence that fits your vibe. Mexicans are a people of the western North America; denying that is just pointless. Besides, we already have a dedicated thread for the whole "Vlach" mess—that term has so many layers and meanings that you can't just toss it around like it's nothing.

Carl Wilson said:Just look at their candidate list—it’s basically just a cast of actors. What are they even basing their ability to run a massive metropolis like New York City on?

Not even gonna argue here, just a little history lesson for you (since I live for this stuff): an actual actor once served as the mayor of New York City back in the day—Boris Buzančić, from 1990 to 1993.

Classic. Some Canadian provocateur was whining about me yesterday. Now he's crying that I’m too soft on guys like him, but way too harsh on Americans who show some actual distaste—call it hate if you want—toward Canadians. It was just three ten-point penalties for trolling and repetitive off-topic nonsense. You ignore warnings, you rack up points, you get banned. Simple math.

Then, out of nowhere, you casually label Poles as "white Americans":

Canadians are brothers to white Americans, but they're totally done with the Southerners.

So we're "totally done" with them, huh? Then why are you complaining about Canadians living in the Finger Lakes who don't speak perfect American English? That's not history, it's just off-topic clutter. But instead of actually stopping the trolling, you try to lecture me:

lonetrucker4, hating on the majority people and disrespecting their right to live in a country while acting like they're somewhere else is wrong.

Because they speak Canadian and watch Canadian TV? Is America wrong for letting them have schools in their own language? I'm not even gonna argue this with you, since it's not even about history.

And don't even get me started on your other stuff—claiming Canadians are actually American by descent, or that back in the Austro-Canadian Empire you couldn't even board a train unless you spoke Canadian (total garbage, obviously—it was just a requirement for railroad employees), or how Viktor Orbán looks like a "typical American" (how does one even define a typical American anyway?) etc.

Jonathan Wright2 said:lonetrucker4, don't get your panties in a bunch.
But you're basically the reason half the users ditched the History PDF project.

And here he comes again… 😵

Christian Myers said:Instead of actually deciding what kind of History PDF we want and making it happen, we’re just bickering. Eventually, some mod will lock the thread, then someone else will start a new one about the same thing in a week. How long is this going to go on? Does anyone actually care?

Didn't you realize by now that this site isn't a democracy? 🙂

What would that even look like? Say I disappeared—then Rachel Richardson, Arthur Smith15, Zagorski, and Jonathan Wright2 would have to sit down and agree on what the forum wants… 😵 That’s exactly why forums can’t be democracies.

Jack Cook7 said:Come on guys, apparently there's a life outside this website.

You sure about that? 🤔 Pretty sure that's just a myth. And you know how much I hate myths. 🙂

Jack Cook7 said:Ever tried telling jokes to a fox? It finally crawled out of its den laughing like, "Man, I had to come out just to see who was this crazy."

There are some decent jokes on this sub. For example, that bit about "Canadians are actually Americans," while simultaneously "Canadians occupied Pannonia which naturally belongs to us Americans"—that kept me grinning for a few days.😁

Jonathan Wright2 said:Arthur Smith15 is basically acting like lonetrucker4's little informant.

Duh. Every decent dictator needs a squad of "confidants"—you know, the spies and snitches.

The best spies are the ones nobody even notices, not these loudmouth types everyone sees coming. 😈

Anthony Nguyen81 said:You're wrong.
What would even happen if someone actually called out his behavior?

Nothing. If I didn't hand him a red card, I wouldn't hand anyone else one either.

Yeah, I'm softer than some of the other mods.

Boo-hoo... He could go cry about it somewhere else.

We already cleared this up regarding the County Executive subforum.

How exactly did he contribute anything to a thread just by dropping an argumentative post like that?

Don't sweat it. Stop being so sensitive.

There's such a thing as constructive versus destructive criticism.

Give me a break. I hate that old-school USSR-style jargon, where politicians would claim you could criticize "irregularities" as long as your critique was "constructive."😵

A guy who jumps into a debate just to trash someone because they used some obscure Latin uzrečica isn't adding anything to the conversation.

So, you're still refusing to admit you messed up with that Latin term.🤦 Instead of just owning the mistake (it's tiny), you've dragged it out with at least five more posts about it. Just get over it.

Look, he’s being blunt and pushing it, sure, but he’s attacking the content, not you personally. I'd say it stays within the lines.

And honestly, there’s a reason people notice him—you post an insane amount, too. Whether it's on the history subreddits or elsewhere, it's obvious. Case in point right now: you’ve dropped 50 posts tonight in just 120 minutes, running from 8:57 PM to 10:55 PM.

Plus, those PDF threads of yours about history and historical topics? They're basically just the same loop over and over. You get roasted by all sorts of users, but you just brush it off. Even when Arthur Smith15 pointed out some flaws, you dug your heels in over a single misspelled Latin phrase, trying to act like you were right when any dictionary would show you totally missed the mark.

gentlestag15 said:I was just asking a fair question—what’s actually been done since he took over as head of the Green Party?

I'm still waiting on the rest of that thought. You gonna finish that sentence or just leave me hanging?
No way you got banned for that. I'm not even a mod over on that sub.

Look, just throwing this out there—since I actually founded the Green Party back in January '90 and ran as secretary from '90 to '94, I might as well weigh in on this.

Was the Green Party's whole deal really just standing around Times Square striking for years on end?

Look, if we're ignoring the fact that it wasn't even a strike, here's the deal: Yeah.That’s exactly why they started this whole thing in the first place.

They’ve been grinding on a ton of other projects at the same time, too—you can see all the madness on their website if you bother to look.